Carbon removal is in the news again today. This story has been prompted by new research that suggests Direct Air Capture could be carried out using new chemistries that could results in a three-fold increase in efficiencies. There are quite a few “coulds” in that this is very early days for a potentially new technology. The article is available here. Once again carbon removal is framed in terms of the Paris Agreement and the failure to actualy cut fossil fuel use. Given that overshoot is inevitable, the only way to limit warming to 1.5 is to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the air. Really large amounts – think billions of tons each year. I’m skeptical about that.
Anyway, this is the preamble to me sharing the first Overshoot Commission Report. This focussed on carbon removal and geoengineering. I should have written about this when it was published last year, but well, with one thing and another… The Overshoot Commission is a very interesting organisation. It’s founded on the assumption (in my humble opinion) that large reductions in fossil fuel use are not going to materialise any time soon and so those nations most vulnerable to climate change need a plan. Carbon removal is one way that any overshoot past 1.5 could be limited and even reduced.
Last year the Overshoot Commission asked me to give a presentation about carbon removal and its potential to limit any overshoot. There then followed a very interesting discussion. One outcome of the meeting was a report available here (I wasn’t involved in the writing of the report and wasn’t asked to review any drafts).
I am very supportive of the Overshoot Commission. The countries they represent are at the sharp end of climate change. They are already being impacted. What’s the value of repeatedly calling for rapid emissions cuts when there is abundant evidence now that such cuts are not going to materialise in time? We can talk about the moral hazard of carbon removal – that is, by promising future fixes or repair to the climate we are allowing fossil fuel use to continu long-past it’s sell by date – but that has had no impact on emissions and rising temperatures. If we care about keeping people safe from a dangerously changing climate, then all options should be explored.
I agree with all of that. And yet I am still skeptical about large-scale carbon removal. There simply is no evidence that it’s going to scale up in time. Yes it will do something. But I fear that its real-world impacts will be limited to the financing of new spinoff companies, the creation of carbon removal credits, and updates to corporate net zero strategy marketing materials. When it comes to limiting overshoot past 1.5 the story remains the same: stop burning fossil fuels.
