Controversies of carbon dioxide removal
Controversies of carbon dioxide removal | Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$99.00 per year
only $8.25 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Bergman, A. & Rinberg, A. in Carbon Dioxide Removal Primer (eds Wilcox, J. et al.) (2021).
Smith, S. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 2023).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim. Change 81, 119–159 (2007).
Reiner, D. M. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nat. Energy 1, 15011 (2016).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).
Geden, O. Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521, 27–28 (2015).
Babiker, M. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 1245–1354 (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
van Asselt, H. & Green, F. COP26 and the dynamics of anti-fossil fuel norms. WIREs Clim. Change 14, e816 (2023).
Dooley, K. & Kartha, S. Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 18, 79–98 (2018).
Sekera, J. et al. Carbon dioxide removal — what’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective. PLoS Clim. 2, e0000124 (2023).
Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature 591, 365–368 (2021).
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).
McLaren, D. Quantifying the potential scale of mitigation deterrence from greenhouse gas removal techniques. Clim. Change 162, 2411–2428 (2020).
Cozzi, L., Chen, O. & Kim, H. The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% — analysis. International Energy Agency (2023).
Geden, O. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 790–797 (2016).
Markusson, N., McLaren, D. & Tyfield, D. Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). Glob. Sustain. 1, e10 (2018).
Günther, P. & Ekardt, F. Human rights and large-scale carbon dioxide removal: potential limits to BECCS and DACCS deployment. Land 11, 2153 (2022).
Bows-Larkin, A. et al. Importance of non-CO2 emissions in carbon management. Carbon Manag. 5, 193–210 (2014).
Rickels, W., Proelß, A., Geden, O., Burhenne, J. & Fridahl, M. Integrating carbon dioxide removal into European emissions trading. Front. Clim. 3, 690023 (2021).
Acknowledgements
G.P.P. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 101056306 (IAM COMPACT). O.G. receives support from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant numbers 03F0898E and 01LS2101A). L.F. acknowledges funding from a number of foundations and individual donations that support The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL; see https://cielannualreport.org/supporters/). K.A. acknowledges the following colleagues for their long-term engagement on CDR issues: A. Larkin, D. Calverley and I. Stoddard.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Related links
Carbon Brief Guest Post: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-the-tiny-remaining-1-5c-car…
IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C Warming: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Tyndall Production Phaseout Report: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/phaseout-pathways-for…
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, K., Buck, H.J., Fuhr, L. et al. Controversies of carbon dioxide removal. Nat Rev Earth Environ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y
Related Knowledge Center: Air emissions
More than 30 years after the last major update of the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Supreme Court has upended the ability of Congress to give the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies broad scope to combat air pollution, including the emission of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile, further Biden administration efforts to limit emissions face opposition in the courts.