EU unveils controversial climate target: what scientists think

Katharine Sanderson,Carissa Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00361-9

IF: 64.8

2024-02-07

Nature

Abstract:The goal leans heavily on the largely unproven approach of carbon removal, concerning researchers. The goal leans heavily on the largely unproven approach of carbon removal, concerning researchers.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The role of carbon capture, utilization, and storage for economic pathways that limit global warming to below 1.5C

Jenny G. Vitillo,Matthew D. Eisaman,Edda S. P. Aradottir,Fabrizio Passarini,Tao Wang,Stafford W. Sheehan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.104237

IF: 5.8

2022-01-01

iScience

Abstract:The 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, for the first time, stated that CO2 removal will be necessary to meet our climate goals. How-ever, there is a cost to accomplish CO2 removal or mitigation that varies by source. Accordingly, a sensible strategy to prevent climate change begins by mitigating emission sources requiring the least energy and capital investment per ton of CO2, such as new emitters and long-term stationary sources. The pro-duction of CO2-derived products should also start by favoring processes that bring to market high-value products with sufficient margin to tolerate a higher cost of goods.
Carbon farming, overestimated negative emissions and the limits to emissions trading in land-use governance: the EU carbon removal certification proposal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-024-00892-y

2024-04-10

Environmental Sciences Europe

Abstract:This article conducts a qualitative governance analysis of the European Commission's 2022 proposal for a certification framework for carbon removals (CRCF). It highlights potential challenges and legal implications—with a specific focus on carbon farming. While the European Union (EU) acknowledges carbon farming as an important strategy to offset residual emissions, such carbon removal activities are prone to reversals and models often overestimate their sequestration potential. The CRCF aims to account for these issues, but the analysis shows that the proposal may, in part, undermine international climate and biodiversity goals set by the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key concerns include its failure to consider the normative hierarchy between emission reductions and removals mandated by EU and international law, the introduction of a temporary removal crediting system, the extensive delegation of powers to the Commission, the possibility that it may incentivise shifting effects, and its lack of alignment with other EU environmental policies. Additionally, the CRCF's failure to restrict the use of carbon credits after certification increases the risk of double claiming of removal activities—and the proposal may open the door for to future integration of carbon removals into the EU's emission trading scheme, which should be avoided for various reasons. As an alternative, member states should consider targeted subsidy schemes and regulatory instruments to navigate these challenges in carbon farming effectively.

environmental sciences
The carbon dioxide removal gap

William F. Lamb,Thomas Gasser,Rosa M. Roman-Cuesta,Giacomo Grassi,Matthew J. Gidden,Carter M. Powis,Oliver Geden,Gregory Nemet,Yoga Pratama,Keywan Riahi,Stephen M. Smith,Jan Steinhauser,Naomi E. Vaughan,Harry B. Smith,Jan C. Minx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01984-6

IF: 30.7

2024-05-04

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Rapid emissions reductions, including reductions in deforestation-based land emissions, are the dominant source of global climate mitigation potential in the coming decades. However, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will also have an important role to play. Despite this, it remains unclear whether current national proposals for CDR align with temperature targets. Here we show the 'CDR gap', that is, CDR efforts proposed by countries fall short of those in integrated assessment model scenarios that limit warming to 1.5 °C. However, the most ambitious proposals for CDR are close to levels in a low-energy demand scenario with the most-limited CDR scaling and aggressive near-term emissions reductions. Further, we observe that many countries propose to expand land-based removals, but none yet commit to substantively scaling novel methods such as bioenergy carbon capture and storage, biochar or direct air carbon capture and storage.

meteorology & atmospheric sciences,environmental sciences,environmental studies
Key uncertainties behind global projections of direct air capture deployment

Kasra Motlaghzadeh,Vanessa Schweizer,Neil Craik,Juan Moreno-Cruz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121485

IF: 11.2

2023-07-12

Applied Energy

Abstract:To limit global warming to levels set in the Paris Agreement, integrated assessment modeling highlights the necessity of removing gigatons of carbon dioxide. Direct air capture is one of the potential methods for carbon dioxide removal and has gained significant attention despite being a relatively new technology. While some scenarios can meet Paris targets without relying on direct air capture, other models show the need for up to 38 gigatons/yr of removal by this technology. Such wide variation in projections reflects uncertainty over the feasibility of deploying direct air capture at scale and points the need for greater attention to the model assumptions driving this variation. This study provides a comprehensive review of scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report and peer-reviewed studies focusing on direct air capture as a mitigation strategy. The review identifies several key factors contributing to uncertainty in direct air capture projections, including prolonged fossil fuel use, diversity of carbon removal methods, future socio-economic conditions, intergenerational assumptions, deployment limitations, and technology costs. The study recommends conducting multi-model assessments of direct air capture scenarios due to the influence of various assumptions and model structures on projections. The authors also suggest including different variants of direct air capture technology and both carbon utilization and storage pathways in future models, as these factors can impact system demands, economic efficiency, and public acceptability.

energy & fuels,engineering, chemical
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal: Long-Term Consequences and Commitment

Long Cao,Ken Caldeira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024011

IF: 6.7

2010-01-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Carbon capture from ambient air has been proposed as a mitigation strategy to counteract anthropogenic climate change. We use an Earth system model to investigate the response of the coupled climate–carbon system to an instantaneous removal of all anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. In our extreme and idealized simulations, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are halted and all anthropogenic CO2 is removed from the atmosphere at year 2050 under the IPCC A2 CO2 emission scenario when the model-simulated atmospheric CO2 reaches 511 ppm and surface temperature reaches 1.8 °C above the pre-industrial level. In our simulations a one-time removal of all anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere reduces surface air temperature by 0.8 °C within a few years, but 1 °C surface warming above pre-industrial levels lasts for several centuries. In other words, a one-time removal of 100% excess CO2 from the atmosphere offsets less than 50% of the warming experienced at the time of removal. To maintain atmospheric CO2 and temperature at low levels, not only does anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere need to be removed, but anthropogenic CO2 stored in the ocean and land needs to be removed as well when it outgasses to the atmosphere. In our simulation to maintain atmospheric CO2 concentrations at pre-industrial levels for centuries, an additional amount of CO2 equal to the original CO2 captured would need to be removed over the subsequent 80 years.
Land-use Emissions Play a Critical Role in Land-Based Mitigation for Paris Climate Targets

Anna B. Harper,Tom Powell,Peter M. Cox,Joanna House,Chris Huntingford,Timothy M. Lenton,Stephen Sitch,Eleanor Burke,Sarah E. Chadburn,William J. Collins,Edward Comyn-Platt,Vassilis Daioglou,Jonathan C. Doelman,Garry Hayman,Eddy Robertson,Detlef van Vuuren,Andy Wiltshire,Christopher P. Webber,Ana Bastos,Lena Boysen,Philippe Ciais,Narayanappa Devaraju,Atul K. Jain,Andreas Krause,Ben Poulter,Shijie Shu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05340-z

IF: 16.6

2018-01-01

Nature Communications

Abstract:Scenarios that limit global warming to below 2 °C by 2100 assume significant land-use change to support large-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) removal from the atmosphere by afforestation/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The more ambitious mitigation scenarios require even greater land area for mitigation and/or earlier adoption of CO 2 removal strategies. Here we show that additional land-use change to meet a 1.5 °C climate change target could result in net losses of carbon from the land. The effectiveness of BECCS strongly depends on several assumptions related to the choice of biomass, the fate of initial above ground biomass, and the fossil-fuel emissions offset in the energy system. Depending on these factors, carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO 2 removal than BECCS.
Feasible climate mitigation

Paul C. Stern,Thomas Dietz,Kristian S. Nielsen,Wei Peng,Michael P. Vandenbergh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01563-7

IF: 30.7

2022-12-23

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Efforts to achieve emissions targets often fall short. Science can help meet the targets by assessing the feasibility of initiatives proposed to reach them, focusing on issues of adoption and implementation and the behavioural plasticity of intended responders.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Sustainability implications of different carbon dioxide removal technologies in the context of Europe's climate neutrality goal

Humphrey Adun,Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah,Olusola Bamisile,Dilber Uzun Ozsahin,Iain Staffell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.003

IF: 8.921

2024-04-07

Sustainable Production and Consumption

Abstract:The role of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is undoubtedly crucial in achieving the climate goals and end-of-century global warming target. Given its role as a leader in global climate actions, the European Union (EU) is expected to take a leading role in CDR developments: yet there is a lack of depth in the region's CDR strategy and deployment. A comprehensive CDR approach based on integrated assessment modelling for the EU is required to give valuable insights into optimal CDR-based mitigation pathways regarding scalability, technology readiness, trade-offs with earth systems, and deployment strategies. Here, we have used the GCAM-CDR v1.0 to model a diverse novel CDR portfolio of bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS), terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and ocean-enhanced weathering (OEW) in a mid-century carbon neutrality target. We find that CO 2 removal by BECCS scales quickly to gigatonnes of CO 2 removal by mid-century, and DACCS is a latter-century mitigation technology in the EU's emission mitigation pathway. TEW will play a crucial role in achieving carbon neutrality in the EU if this climate goal is advanced by a decade. Modelled results show that achieving carbon neutrality through diverse CDRs relies heavily on significant emission reductions in the industrial and hard-to-abate sectors. Finally, we observed that nuclear energy will be an important energy resource for these CDR technologies in Europe. This study recommends that the EU carbon removal structure should not be limited to DACCS, but rather allow for innovations in carbon removal technologies. Synopsis The EU needs to develop a more comprehensive CDR strategy; with bioenergy and nuclear energy playing a vital role and DACCS developing later.

environmental studies,green & sustainable science & technology
Over-reliance on land for carbon dioxide removal in net-zero climate pledges

Kate Dooley,Kirstine Lund Christiansen,Jens Friis Lund,Wim Carton,Alister Self

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53466-0

IF: 16.6

2024-10-23

Nature Communications

Abstract:Achieving net-zero climate targets requires some level of carbon dioxide removal. Current assessments focus on tonnes of CO 2 removed, without specifying what form these removals will take. Here, we show that countries' climate pledges require approximately 1 (0.9–1.1) billion ha of land for removals. For over 40% of this area, the pledges envisage the conversion of existing land uses to forests, while the remaining area restores existing ecosystems and land uses. We analyse how this demand for land is distributed geographically and over time. The results are concerning, both in terms of the aggregate area of land, but also the rate and extent of land use change. Our findings demonstrate a gap between governments' expected reliance on land and the role that land can realistically play in climate mitigation. This adds another layer to the observed shortcomings of national climate pledges and indicates a need for more transparency around the role of land in national climate mitigation plans.

multidisciplinary sciences
Current national proposals are off track to meet carbon dioxide removal needs

William F. Lamb,Thomas Gasser,Rosa M. Roman-Cuesta,Giacomo Grass,Matthew J. Gidden,Carter M. Powis,Oliver Geden,Gregory Nemet,Yoga Pratama,Keywan Riah,Stephen M. Smith,Jan Steinhauser,Naomi E. Vaughan,Harry Smith,Jan C. Minx

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-01993-5

IF: 30.7

2024-05-04

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Meeting the Paris Agreement targets requires deep emissions reductions supported by a scale-up in carbon dioxide removal. However, current country-reported mitigation pledges are off track to meet carbon dioxide removal needs, unless countries dramatically reduce emissions consistent with low-energy-demand scenarios.

meteorology & atmospheric sciences,environmental sciences,environmental studies
European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities

Eve Tamme,Larissa Lee Beck

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.682882

2021-09-27

Frontiers in Climate

Abstract:Over the past two years, the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and the UK have increased climate ambition and aggressively pushed forward an agenda to pursue climate neutrality or net-zero emissions by mid-century. This increased ambition, partly the result of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark findings on limiting global warming to 1.5°C, has also led to a renewed approach to and revitalized debate about the role of carbon capture and storage and carbon dioxide removal. With increasing climate ambition, including a mid-century climate neutrality goal for the whole European Union, the potential role of technological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is emerging as one of the critical points of debate among NGOs, policymakers, and the private sector. Policymakers are starting to discuss how to incentivize a CDR scale-up. What encompasses the current debate, and how does it relate to CDR technologies' expected role in reaching climate neutrality? This perspective will highlight that policy must fill two gaps: the accounting and the commercialization gap for the near-term development of a comprehensive CDR policy framework. It will shine a light on the current status of negative emission technologies and the role of carbon capture and storage in delivering negative emissions in Europe's decarbonized future. It will also analyze the role of carbon markets, including voluntary markets, as potential incentives while exploring policy pathways for a near-term scale-up.

English Else
Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk

Ángel Galán-Martín,Daniel Vázquez,Selene Cobo,Niall Mac Dowell,José Antonio Caballero,Gonzalo Guillén-Gosálbez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26680-3

IF: 16.6

2021-11-11

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be essential to meet the climate targets, so enabling its deployment at the right time will be decisive. Here, we investigate the still poorly understood implications of delaying CDR actions, focusing on integrating direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (DACCS and BECCS) into the European Union power mix. Under an indicative target of −50 Gt of net CO 2 by 2100, delayed CDR would cost an extra of 0.12−0.19 trillion EUR per year of inaction. Moreover, postponing CDR beyond mid-century would substantially reduce the removal potential to almost half (−35.60 Gt CO 2 ) due to the underused biomass and land resources and the maximum technology diffusion speed. The effective design of BECCS and DACCS systems calls for long-term planning starting from now and aligned with the evolving power systems. Our quantitative analysis of the consequences of inaction on CDR—with climate targets at risk and fair CDR contributions at stake—should help to break the current impasse and incentivize early actions worldwide.

multidisciplinary sciences
The role of forests in the EU climate policy: are we on the right track?

Anu Korosuo,Roberto Pilli,Raúl Abad Viñas,Viorel N. B. Blujdea,Rene R. Colditz,Giulia Fiorese,Simone Rossi,Matteo Vizzarri,Giacomo Grassi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-023-00234-0

IF: 4.3563

2023-07-31

Carbon Balance and Management

Abstract:The European Union (EU) has committed to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This requires a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ensuring that any remaining emissions are balanced through CO 2 removals. Forests play a crucial role in this plan: they are currently the main option for removing CO 2 from the atmosphere and additionally, wood use can store carbon durably and help reduce fossil emissions. To stop and reverse the decline of the forest carbon sink, the EU has recently revised the regulation on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and set a target of − 310 Mt CO 2 e net removals for the LULUCF sector in 2030.

environmental sciences
New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets

Brian J. Walsh,Felicjan Rydzak,Amanda Palazzo,Florian Kraxner,Mario Herrero,Peer M. Schenk,Philippe Ciais,Ivan A. Janssens,Josep Peñuelas,Anneliese Niederl-Schmidinger,Michael Obersteiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-015-0040-7

IF: 4.3563

2015-12-01

Carbon Balance and Management

Abstract:Net carbon sinks capable of avoiding dangerous perturbation of the climate system and preventing ocean acidification have been identified, but they are likely to be limited by resource constraints (Nature 463:747–756, 2010). Land scarcity already creates tension between food security and bioenergy production, and this competition is likely to intensify as populations and the effects of climate change expand. Despite research into microalgae as a next-generation energy source, the land-sparing consequences of alternative sources of livestock feed have been overlooked. Here we use the FeliX model to quantify emissions pathways when microalgae is used as a feedstock to free up to 2 billion hectares of land currently used for pasture and feed crops. Forest plantations established on these areas can conceivably meet 50 % of global primary energy demand, resulting in emissions mitigation from the energy and LULUC sectors of up to 544 ±\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$$\pm$$\end{document} 107 PgC by 2100. Further emissions reductions from carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology can reduce global atmospheric carbon concentrations close to preindustrial levels by the end of the present century. Though previously thought unattainable, carbon sinks and climate change mitigation of this magnitude are well within the bounds of technological feasibility.

environmental sciences
Reversing the European Trend Toward a Declining Land Carbon Sink?

David Ellison,Johannes Breidenbach,Hans Petersson,Kari T. Korhonen,Helena Henttonen,Jörgen Wallerman,Jonas Fridman,Alex Appiah Mensah,Terje Gobakken,Erik Naesset

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-16261

2021-03-04

Abstract:<div> The announced goal of reversing the European trend toward a declining land carbon sink has garnered much ink. Words can, however, be misleading. Annual additions/contributions (sinks) to the land carbon sink (stocks) from growing forest and increasing forest cover have slowed marginally in recent years. However, the existing European land forest sink (stocks) has (have) expanded continuously across most or all of the 20th century and on into the 21st. More importantly perhaps, EU Member states with significant long-term investments in the forestry sector have historically witnessed strong forest expansion and notmerely with the initiation of international attention to climate change mitigation through the UNFCCC negotiating and climate commitment framework. In this context, frequent assaults on forestry from multiple directions are cause for some bewilderment. We first highlight weaknesses in claims of increased forest use intensity and illustrate that forestry in the Nordic countries has a remarkably small and stable footprint over the 20th and 21st centuries. Addressing the second problem, however, understanding why such attacks occur in the first place, is more complex. Methodologically speaking, challenges to forestry should presumably be balanced by an understanding of the many human welfare benefits forests and the practice of forestry currently provide, as well as the costs of relinquishing those practices. Perhaps due to strong preferences among NGO&#8217;s and in parts of the academic community for natural, untouched, biodiverse forests, the benefits of forestry and forest resource use are consistently under-appreciated. Striking a balance between the desire for natural and biodiverse-rich forest environments on the one hand, and the climate change mitigation (and adaptation) benefits of forestry, forest resource use and substitution on the other is presumably a political and socio-economic necessity. The real question may be to what extent bias in favor of the &#8220;natural&#8221; may ultimately disrupt real, measurable progress toward effective climate change mitigation? Continuous, positive mitigation-related contributions to the growing European land cover sink (stocks), as well as to the global carbon budget (through annual net removals and substitution), have been and should remain the norm. These goals ultimately require an aggressive EU LULUCF strategy capable of fully mobilizing forest and forest resource use in favor of the goal of climate change mitigation (and adaptation). </div>
Large Uncertainty in Carbon Uptake Potential of Land-Based Climate-Change Mitigation Efforts

Andreas Krause,Thomas A. M. Pugh,Anita D. Bayer,Wei Li,Felix Leung,Alberte Bondeau,Jonathan C. Doelman,Florian Humpenoeder,Peter Anthoni,Benjamin L. Bodirsky,Philippe Ciais,Christoph Mueller,Guillermo Murray-Tortarolo,Stefan Olin,Alexander Popp,Stephen Sitch,Elke Stehfest,Almut Arneth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14144

IF: 11.6

2018-01-01

Global Change Biology

Abstract:Most climate mitigation scenarios involve negative emissions, especially those that aim to limit global temperature increase to 2 degrees C or less. However, the carbon uptake potential in land-based climate change mitigation efforts is highly uncertain. Here, we address this uncertainty by using two land-based mitigation scenarios from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) as input to four dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs; LPJ-GUESS, ORCHIDEE, JULES, LPJmL). Each of the four combinations of land-use models and mitigation scenarios aimed for a cumulative carbon uptake of 130 GtC by the end of the century, achieved either via the cultivation of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or avoided deforestation and afforestation (ADAFF). Results suggest large uncertainty in simulated future land demand and carbon uptake rates, depending on the assumptions related to land use and land management in the models. Total cumulative carbon uptake in the DGVMs is highly variable across mitigation scenarios, ranging between 19 and 130 GtC by year 2099. Only one out of the 16 combinations of mitigation scenarios and DGVMs achieves an equivalent or higher carbon uptake than achieved in the land-use models. The large differences in carbon uptake between the DGVMs and their discrepancy against the carbon uptake in IMAGE and MAgPIE are mainly due to different model assumptions regarding bioenergy crop yields and due to the simulation of soil carbon response to land-use change. Differences between land-use models and DGVMs regarding forest biomass and the rate of forest regrowth also have an impact, albeit smaller, on the results. Given the low confidence in simulated carbon uptake for a given land-based mitigation scenario, and that negative emissions simulated by the DGVMs are typically lower than assumed in scenarios consistent with the 2 degrees C target, relying on negative emissions to mitigate climate change is a highly uncertain strategy.
Little to lose: the case for a robust European green hydrogen strategy

Koen van Greevenbroek,Johannes Schmidt,Marianne Zeyringer,Alexander Horsch

2024-12-10

Abstract:The EU targets 10 Mt of green hydrogen production by 2030, but has not committed to targets for 2040. Green hydrogen competes with carbon capture and storage, biomass and imports in reaching emissions reductions; earlier studies have demonstrated the great uncertainty in future cost-optimal development of green hydrogen. In spite of this, we show that Europe risks little by setting green hydrogen production targets at around 25 Mt by 2040. Employing an extensive scenario analysis combined with novel near-optimal techniques, we find that this target results in systems that are within 10% of cost-optimal in most considered scenarios. Setting concrete targets is important in order to resolve significant uncertainty which hampers investments. Targeting green hydrogen reduces the dependence on carbon capture and storage and green fuel imports, making for a more robust European climate strategy.

Systems and Control,Materials Science
Climate policy to defeat the green paradox

Stefan Fölster,Johan Nyström

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0030-7

IF: 6.94

AMBIO

Abstract:Carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol. This discouraging development may partly be blamed on accelerating world growth and on lags in policy instruments. However, it also raises serious question concerning whether policies to reduce CO2 emissions are as effective as generally assumed. In recent years, a considerable number of studies have identified various feedback mechanisms of climate policies that often erode, and occasionally reinforce, their effectiveness. These studies generally focus on a few feedback mechanisms at a time, without capturing the entire effect. Partial accounting of policy feedbacks is common in many climate scenarios. The IPCC, for example, only accounts for direct leakage and rebound effects. This article attempts to map the aggregate effects of different types of climate policy feedback mechanisms in a cohesive framework. Controlling feedback effects is essential if the policy measures are to make any difference on a global level. A general conclusion is that aggregate policy feedback mechanisms tend to make current climate policies much less effective than is generally assumed. In fact, various policy measures involve a definite risk of 'backfiring' and actually increasing CO2 emissions. This risk is particularly pronounced once effects of climate policies on the pace of innovation in climate technology are considered. To stand any chance of controlling carbon emissions, it is imperative that feedback mechanisms are integrated into emission scenarios, targets for emission reduction and implementation of climate policy. In many cases, this will reduce the scope for subsidies to renewable energy sources, but increase the scope for other measures such as schemes to return carbon dioxide to the ground and to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases from wetlands and oceans. A framework that incorporates policy feedback effects necessitates rethinking the design of the national and regional emission targets. This leads us to a new way of formulating emission targets that include feedback effects, the global impact target. Once the full climate policy feedback mechanisms are accounted for, there are probably only three main routes in climate policy that stand a chance of mitigating global warming: (a) returning carbon to the ground, (b) technological leaps in zero-emission energy technology that make it profitable to leave much carbon in the ground even in Annex II countries and (c) international agreements that make it more profitable to leave carbon in the ground or in forests.
The scientific basis of 'net zero emissions' and its diverging sociopolitical representation

S Becken,G Miller,D S Lee,B Mackey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170725

2024-03-25

Abstract:The Net Zero Emissions (NZE) concept has created momentum for climate commitment made by national governments, cities, industries and individual companies. However, evidence of tangible decarbonisation is limited. Here we identify precarious differences between the scientific origin of NZE and its social representation in the wider public and explore the consequences of the resulting science-action gap for achieving global climate goals. A particular focus is given to 'offsetting', which is closely connected to the practical delivery of NZE but typically ignores that different types or carbon credits have different environmental efficacy. Revisiting the science related to the global carbon cycle demonstrates that a heavy reliance on any carbon offsetting that is not a permanent removal presents a real risk. Moreover, competition over scarce 'removal credits' distracts from the real tasks at hand, namely to rapidly decrease fossil fuel emissions, actively remove carbon through restoration, and protect existing terrestrial carbon sinks. Establishing separate targets for these distinct actions is an essential step towards disentangling current confusion. Whilst a 'race to net zero' may trigger innovation in the decarbonisation space, the restoration and protection of carbon sinks demands a collective approach where actors should focus on how to make real and verifiable contributions rather than claiming individual net zero scores.
Overconfidence in climate overshoot

Carl-Friedrich Schleussner,Gaurav Ganti,Quentin Lejeune,Biqing Zhu,Peter Pfleiderer,Ruben Prütz,Philippe Ciais,Thomas L. Frölicher,Sabine Fuss,Thomas Gasser,Matthew J. Gidden,Chahan M. Kropf,Fabrice Lacroix,Robin Lamboll,Rosanne Martyr,Fabien Maussion,Jamie W. McCaughey,Malte Meinshausen,Matthias Mengel,Zebedee Nicholls,Yann Quilcaille,Benjamin Sanderson,Sonia I. Seneviratne,Jana Sillmann,Christopher J. Smith,Norman J. Steinert,Emily Theokritoff,Rachel Warren,Jeff Price,Joeri Rogelj

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08020-9

IF: 64.8

2024-10-10

Nature

Abstract:Global emission reduction efforts continue to be insufficient to meet the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement 1 . This makes the systematic exploration of so-called overshoot pathways that temporarily exceed a targeted global warming limit before drawing temperatures back down to safer levels a priority for science and policy 2,3,4,5 . Here we show that global and regional climate change and associated risks after an overshoot are different from a world that avoids it. We find that achieving declining global temperatures can limit long-term climate risks compared with a mere stabilization of global warming, including for sea-level rise and cryosphere changes. However, the possibility that global warming could be reversed many decades into the future might be of limited relevance for adaptation planning today. Temperature reversal could be undercut by strong Earth-system feedbacks resulting in high near-term and continuous long-term warming 6,7 . To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes. Yet, technical, economic and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales 8,9 . Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks.

multidisciplinary sciences

EU unveils controversial climate target: what scientists think

The role of carbon capture, utilization, and storage for economic pathways that limit global warming to below 1.5C

Carbon farming, overestimated negative emissions and the limits to emissions trading in land-use governance: the EU carbon removal certification proposal

The carbon dioxide removal gap

Key uncertainties behind global projections of direct air capture deployment

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Removal: Long-Term Consequences and Commitment

Land-use Emissions Play a Critical Role in Land-Based Mitigation for Paris Climate Targets

Feasible climate mitigation

Sustainability implications of different carbon dioxide removal technologies in the context of Europe's climate neutrality goal

Over-reliance on land for carbon dioxide removal in net-zero climate pledges

Current national proposals are off track to meet carbon dioxide removal needs

European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities

Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk

The role of forests in the EU climate policy: are we on the right track?

New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets

Reversing the European Trend Toward a Declining Land Carbon Sink?

Large Uncertainty in Carbon Uptake Potential of Land-Based Climate-Change Mitigation Efforts

Little to lose: the case for a robust European green hydrogen strategy

Climate policy to defeat the green paradox

The scientific basis of 'net zero emissions' and its diverging sociopolitical representation

Overconfidence in climate overshoot