The carbon dioxide removal gap (original) (raw)

References

  1. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  2. Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 1st edn (The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal, 2023); https://www.stateofcdr.org
  3. Babiker, M. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 12 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  4. Tracking Clean Energy Progress (IEA, 2022); https://www.iea.org/topics/tracking-clean-energy-progress
  5. Climate Action Tracker (New Climate Institute and Climate Analytics, 2023); https://climateactiontracker.org/
  6. Boehm, S. et al. State of Climate Action 2022 (WRI, 2022); https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.22.00028
  7. Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window — Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies (UNEP, 2022); https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2022
  8. den Elzen, M. G. J. et al. Updated nationally determined contributions collectively raise ambition levels but need strengthening further to keep Paris goals within reach. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 27, 33 (2022).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Meinshausen, M. et al. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C. Nature 604, 304–309 (2022).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  10. Rogelj, J. et al. Credibility gap in net-zero climate targets leaves world at high risk. Science 380, 1014–1016 (2023).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature 591, 365–368 (2021).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  12. Dooley, K. et al. The Land Gap Report 2022 (Climate Resource, 2022); https://www.landgap.org/
  13. Smith, H. B., Vaughan, N. E. & Forster, J. Long-term national climate strategies bet on forests and soils to reach net-zero. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 305 (2022).
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Buck, H. J., Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Markusson, N. Why residual emissions matter right now. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 351–358 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Lund, J. F., Markusson, N., Carton, W. & Buck, H. J. Net zero and the unexplored politics of residual emissions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 98, 103035 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  16. McLaren, D. P., Tyfield, D. P., Willis, R., Szerszynski, B. & Markusson, N. O. Beyond ‘net-zero’: a case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Front. Clim. 1, 4 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Dooley, K. Undoing equivalence: rethinking carbon accounting for just carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3, 664130 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global Carbon Budget 2023. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 5301–5369 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  19. Powis, C. M., Smith, S. M., Minx, J. C. & Gasser, T. Quantifying global carbon dioxide removal deployment. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acb450 (2023).
  20. Byers, E. et al. AR6 scenarios database hosted by IIASA. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5886911 (2022).
  21. Gidden, M. J. et al. Aligning climate scenarios to emissions inventories shifts global benchmarks. Nature 624, 102–108 (2023).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  22. Buylova, A., Fridahl, M., Nasiritousi, N. & Reischl, G. Cancel (out) emissions? The envisaged role of carbon dioxide removal technologies in long-term national climate strategies. Front. Clim. 3, 675499 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  23. Grubler, A. et al. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5 °C target and sustainable development goals without negative emissions technologies. Nat. Energy 3, 515–527 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  24. Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  25. Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).
  26. Mo, L. et al. Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature 624, 92–101 (2023).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  27. Fyson, C. L. & Jeffery, M. L. Ambiguity in the land use component of mitigation contributions toward the Paris Agreement goals. Earths Future 7, 873–891 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
  28. Benveniste, H., Boucher, O., Guivarch, C., Treut, H. L. & Criqui, P. Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014022 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  29. Strefler, J. et al. Carbon dioxide removal technologies are not born equal. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074021 (2021).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  30. Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392 (2014).
  31. Keyßer, L. T. & Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 12, 2676 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  32. Geden, O. Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521, 27–28 (2015).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  33. Bergman, A. & Rinberg, A. in CDR Primer (eds. Wilcox, J. et al.) Ch. 1 (Hemlock Printers, 2021).
  34. Carton, W., Hougaard, I., Markusson, N. & Lund, J. F. Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? WIREs Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826 (2023).
  35. Moe, E. & Røttereng, J.-K. S. The post-carbon society: rethinking the international governance of negative emissions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44, 199–208 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  36. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. 3, e17 (2020).
    Article Google Scholar
  37. Painter, J. et al. Climate delay discourses present in global mainstream television coverage of the IPCC’s 2021 report. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 118 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  38. Grassi, G. et al. The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 220–226 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
  39. Grassi, G. et al. Carbon fluxes from land 2000–2020: bringing clarity to countries’ reporting. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 4643–4666 (2022).
    Article Google Scholar
  40. Giebink, C. L. et al. The policy and ecology of forest-based climate mitigation: challenges, needs, and opportunities. Plant Soil 479, 25–52 (2022).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  41. IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, 2019).
  42. Kraxner, F. & Nordström, E.-M. in The Future Use of Nordic Forests (eds Westholm, E. et al.) 63–81 (Springer, 2015).
  43. Hyyrynen, M., Ollikainen, M. & Seppälä, J. European forest sinks and climate targets: past trends, main drivers, and future forecasts. Eur. J. Forest Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01587-4 (2023).
  44. Korosuo, A. et al. The role of forests in the EU climate policy: are we on the right track? Carbon Balance Manage. 18, 15 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  45. Nemet, G., Greene, J., Müller-Hansen, F. & Minx, J. C. Dataset on the adoption of historical technologies informs the scale-up of emerging carbon dioxide removal measures. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 397 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  46. Strefler, J. et al. Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044015 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  47. Prütz, R., Strefler, J., Rogelj, J. & Fuss, S. Understanding the carbon dioxide removal range in 1.5 °C compatible and high overshoot pathways. Environ. Res. Commun. 5, 041005 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  48. Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 3277 (2019).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  49. Fuhrman, J. et al. Diverse carbon dioxide removal approaches could reduce impacts on the energy–water–land system. _Nat. Clim. Chang_e https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01604-9 (2023).
  50. Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 626–633 (2018).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  51. Breyer, C. et al. Proposing a 1.0 °C climate target for a safer future. PLoS Clim. 2, e0000234 (2023).
    Article Google Scholar
  52. Riahi, K. et al. Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1063–1069 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  53. Emmerling, J. et al. The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 104008 (2019).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  54. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  55. Fasihi, M., Efimova, O. & Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 957–980 (2019).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  56. Andreoni, P., Emmerling, J. & Tavoni, M. Inequality repercussions of financing negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 48–54 (2024).
    Article Google Scholar
  57. Fuhrman, J. et al. Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 920–927 (2020).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  58. Crippa, M. et al. CO 2 Emissions of All World Countries – 2022 Report (European Commission, 2022); https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset_ghg70
  59. Forster, P. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 7 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
  60. Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—Part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
  61. Gasser, T. & Ciais, P. A theoretical framework for the net land-to-atmosphere CO2 flux and its implications in the definition of ‘emissions from land-use change’. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4, 171–186 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  62. Grassi, G. et al. Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries’ climate progress. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 14 (2021).
    Article Google Scholar
  63. Grassi, G. et al. Harmonising the land-use flux estimates of global models and national inventories for 2000–2020. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 1093–1114, 2023.
  64. Gütschow, J. & Pflüger, M. The PRIMAP-hist national historical emissions time series (1750–2021) v2.4.2. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7727475 (2023).
  65. Mitigation Paths and Policy Instruments to Reach Brazilian Goals in the Paris Agreement (MCIT, 2017); https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/acompanhe-o-mcti/sirene/publicacoes/acordo-de-paris-e-ndc/arquivos/pdf/trajetoriasebookb_final.pdf
  66. Smith, H., Vaughan, N. E. & Forster, J. Navigating Net Zero: Analysing Residual Emissions in Long-Term National Climate Strategies. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4678157 (2024).
  67. In-Depth Analysis in Support on the COM(2018) 773 (European Commission, 2018); https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-08/long-term_analysis_in_depth_analysis_figures_20190722_en.pdf
  68. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2021. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1917–2005 (2022).
    Article Google Scholar
  69. Lamb, W. The carbon dioxide removal gap dataset (version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10821849 (2024).

Download references