Schlagwort: Carbon Dioxide Removal

Peer-reviewed Publications

Schwinger et al. (2026): Assessing Earth system responses in deep mitigation scenarios with activity-driven simulation of carbon dioxide removal

Jörg Schwinger, Leon Merfort, Nico Bauer, Raffaele Bernadello, Momme Butenschön, Timothée Bourgeois, Matthew J. Gidden, Shraddha Gupta, Hanna Lee, Nadine Mengis, Yiannis Moustakis, Helene Muri, Lars Nieradzik, Daniele Peano, Julia Pongratz, Pascal Sauer, Etienne Tourigny and David Wårlind, IN: EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-833

Assessing Earth system responses arising from carbon dioxide removal (CDR) requires developing and simulating pairs of scenarios – a mitigation scenario with deployment of CDR and a corresponding no-CDR baseline. The latter describes a world where no CDR is deployed, such that net carbon emissions are higher and a given temperature target may be missed. While over the past years a rich literature on deep mitigation scenarios with CDR has been emerging, no-CDR baselines have mostly been explored in stylized Earth system model (ESM) experiments. In such simulations, a no-CDR baseline simply assumes that CDR is “switched off”, while socio-economic constraints are not considered. However, the deployment of CDR in deep mitigation scenarios, created by integrated assessment models (IAMs), is embedded in a consistent socio-economic description of plausible futures, and disallowing CDR may affect climate drivers due to changes in the energy system and in land-use dynamics. Particularly, when moving towards an activity-driven representation of CDR in emission-driven ESMs, where the activity that draws down CO₂ from the atmosphere is explicitly modelled, the creation of no-CDR baselines comes with challenges and trade-offs. Here, the authors conceptualize a framework for emission-driven ESM simulations of IAM scenarios that allows them to determine carbon-cycle and biogeophysical feedbacks of CDR deployment using no-CDR baselines.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Olasehinde et al. (2026): Socio-economic implications of deploying COP28 pledged negative emission technologies

Daniel O. Olasehinde, Olusola Bamisile, Caroline Acen, Chukwuebuka Ejiyi and Qi Huang, IN: Carbon Capture Science & Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccst.2026.100590

Achieving the Paris Agreement’s targets will inevitably impose financial burdens, but choosing the most economically viable path is critical. At COP28, countries pledged to triple renewable energy capacity to 11,000 GW and double energy efficiency gains to 4 % annually by 2030. The agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) sector also committed to reducing emissions and enhancing carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Using the En-ROADS modeling tool, this study evaluates five global scenarios combining varying degrees of fossil fuel reduction and CDR deployment: Ref (based on current COP28-aligned pledges), Ref++ (Ref with added fossil fuel taxes and carbon pricing), limCDR (Ref++ plus limited deployment of technological CDR up to 50 % of its potential), modCDR (Ref with moderate CDR deployment up to 65 % of potential, but no fossil fuel taxation), and allCDR (Ref with full utilization of technological CDR potential and no fossil fuel taxation). While population growth is held constant across all scenarios, economic outcomes diverge.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Shen et al. (2026): Atmospheric CO₂ drawdown during the Emeishan flood basalt volcanism

Jiaheng Shen, Yi Ge Zhang, Dong-Xun Yuan & Yi-Gang Xu, IN: Nature Communications, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69600-z

The conventional model linking large igneous provinces (LIPs) to atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (pCO₂) predicts elevated CO₂ during volcanic emplacement, leading to biotic crises. However, this generalization requires testing. Here, the authors reconstruct pCO₂ variations throughout the Emeishan LIP emplacement (~260 Ma) using carbon isotopes from chlorophyll-derived compounds.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Chen et al. (2026): Sustainability analysis of basalt enhanced weathering in China under the carbon neutrality pathway

Xinyu Chen, Xuan Wang, Xiaoping Jia, Siqi Wang, Raymond R. Tan, Bohong Wang, Fang Wang, IN: Environmental Impact Assessment Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2026.108396

Enhanced weathering (EW) of basalt is a promising negative emission technology (NET) for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), yet its large-scale sustainability remains uncertain, particularly in energy-intensive economies like China. This work develops an environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model to evaluate the economic and environmental impacts of basalt EW deployment under China’s carbon neutrality pathway. This framework integrates life-cycle emissions from mining, comminution, transportation, and cropland application, quantifying trade-offs between CDR potential and process-related carbon footprints.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Schiedung et al. (2026): Uncertainties of enhanced rock weathering for climate-change mitigation

Marcus Schiedung, Kirsty J. Harrington, Xavier Dupla, Benjamin Möller, Ennio Facq, Tim Sweere, Axel Don, Robert G. Hilton, Sebastian Doetterl and Jordon D. Hemingway, IN: Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-026-00761-7

Enhanced rock weathering (ERW) on agricultural soils is under consideration as a long-term carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategy. In this Perspective, the authors evaluate uncertainties related to ERW around feedstock availability, plant–soil system impacts, CDR efficiency along the land–ocean continuum and socio-economic considerations.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Bishop et al. (2026): Cascading wood use into bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ensures continuous and enduring temperature reduction

George Bishop, Colm Duffy, Goran Berndes, Miguel Brandao, Annette Cowie, John Healey, Christiane Hennig, Kati Koponen, James Gaffey & David Styles, IN: Bangor University

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is a key component of pathways to net zero, yet potential interactions with forest carbon dynamics, cascading wood strategies, and progressive decarbonisation and CCS deployment are poorly represented in assessments. Here, using dynamic life cycle assessment, the authors explore these factors for sawmill residue-derived BECCS value chains over long, yet flexible, time-horizons.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Watson & Bui (2026): Can temporary carbon dioxide removal fix a long-term climate problem? An analysis of equivalency ratios and the like-for-like approach

Charles Watson and Mai Bui, IN: Environmental Research: Climate, https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/ae4058

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are increasingly important for meeting climate targets. These can vary widely in terms of their permanence, with some methods temporarily storing carbon for decades and others storing carbon for millennia or longer. Economic equivalency ratios have been developed to understand and compare the value of CDR options in terms of permanence. These ratios enable the conversion of temporary carbon storage (i.e., low permanence) into an equivalent permanent value, using tools like discounting, time horizons, and damage functions. This study comparatively evaluates three key methods-the climate repair value, the social value of an offset, and discounted tonne-year accounting-by combining a Sobol sensitivity analysis with a critical qualitative assessment of their underlying assumptions.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Tu et al. (2026): Scaling up enhanced rock weathering for equitable climate change mitigation

Ying Tu, Radine Rafols, Yangyang Xu, Natalia Butler, Linah Ababneh, Feng Tao, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Benjamin Z. Houlton and Chuan Liao, IN: Communications Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44458-026-00034-w

Enhanced rock weathering (ERW) is an emerging approach to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while improving soil health and crop productivity. Yet its long-term climate impact remains uncertain due to limited understanding of how adoption will evolve across regions, income groups, and in response to a warming world. Here, the authors combine historical analogs of technological diffusion with a coupled human–nature feedback model to provide spatially explicit projections of global ERW adoption through 2100.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Li et al. (2026): Alkaline materials for coastal ocean alkalinity enhancement: A comparative study of natural silicates and industrial byproducts

Xinyu Li, Zhe Zhou, Heng Xiao, Jiangtao Li and Shouye Yang, IN: Marine Pollution Bulletin, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2026.119338

Coastal ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) is a promising ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approach for mitigating climate change and counteracting ocean acidification. However, uncertainties persist regarding the efficacy and environmental safety of alkaline materials under realistic coastal conditions. This study comparatively investigated the CO₂ sequestration potential, geochemical processes, and environmental impacts of four alkaline materials—natural silicates (olivine, basalt) and industrial byproducts (fly ash, steel slag)—through laboratory incubations with natural seawater (filtered and unfiltered) and in situ deployments off the East China Sea.

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Brander et al. (2026): Clarifying what is meant by greenhouse gas ‘removals’ and categorising types of ‘removal-related activities’

Matthew Brander, Derik Broekhoff and Maurice Bryson, IN: Climate Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2026.2625956

There is broad recognition that removals of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) will be required for counter-balancing emissions from hard-to-abate sectors to achieve net zero, and will also be necessary in the increasingly likely event of an emissions overshoot in order to return atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and temperature change below target levels. However, the term “removal” is open to imprecise usage, which is likely to result in confusion over which activities policy-makers, investors and carbon credit buyers wish to support, and what project developers and technology providers actually deliver. This commentary paper aims to clarify what is meant by “removals” by analysing the definitions from prominent sources and by proposing a precise definition of the term.

LINK

#