Schlagwort: negative emissions

Nature – Buck et al. (2023): Why residual emissions matter right now

Holly Jean Buck, Wim Carton, Jens Friis Lund, Nils Markusson IN: Nat. Clim. Chang. (2023).

Net-zero targets imply that continuing residual emissions will be balanced by carbon dioxide removal. However, residual emissions are typically not well defined, conceptually or quantitatively. The authors analysed governments’ long-term strategies submitted to the UNFCCC to explore projections of residual emissions, including amounts and sectors.


Report: Greenhouse gas removal in Australia: A report on the novel negative emissions approaches for Australia roundtable

The Australian Academy of Science convened a roundtable of experts in 2022 to discuss the scientific capability, research and collaboration needed to support new breakthroughs in greenhouse gas removal. This report provides a summary of the roundtable discussions and presentations, and provides some guidance on opportunities and actions.


Abdullatif et al. (2023): Emerging trends in direct air capture of CO2: a review of technology options targeting net-zero emissions

Yasser Abdullatif, Ahmed Sodiq, Namra Mir, Yusuf Bicer, Tareq Al-Ansari, Muftah H. El-Naas, Abdulkarem I. Amhamed IN: (Review Article) RSC Adv. 13, 5687-5722; DOI: 10.1039/D2RA07940B

This review focuses on emerging trends in direct air capture (DAC) of CO2, the main drivers of DAC systems, and the required development for commercialization. The main findings point to undeniable facts that DAC’s overall system energy requirement is high, and it is the main bottleneck in DAC commercialization.


Jayakrishnan & Bala [Preprint]: A comparison of the climate and carbon cycle effects of carbon removal by Afforestation and an equivalent reduction in Fossil fuel emissions

Koramanghat Unnikrishnan Jayakrishnan & Govindasamy Bala IN: Biogeosciences Discuss. [preprint],, in review, 2022.

In this paper, the authors compare the climate and carbon cycle consequences of carbon removal by afforestation and an equivalent fossil fuel emission reduction using simulations from an intermediate complexity Earth system model. The author’s simulations show that the climate is cooler by 0.36 °C, 0.47 °C, and 0.42 °C in the long term (2471–2500) in the case of reduced fossil fuel emissions compared to the case with afforestation when the emissions follow the SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5 scenarios, respectively.


Sovacool et al. (2022): Determining our climate policy future: expert opinions about negative emissions and solar radiation management pathways

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Chad M. Baum, Sean Low IN: Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 27, 58,

In this study, the authors rely on a large expert survey (N = 74) to critically examine the future potential of both negative emission options (e.g., carbon dioxide removal) and solar radiation management techniques. The authors designed a survey process that asked a pool of prominent experts questions about (i) the necessity of adopting negative emissions or solar radiation management options, (ii) the desirability of such options when ranked against each other, (iii) estimations of future efficacy in terms of temperature reductions achieved or gigatons of carbon removed, (iv) expectations about future scaling, commercialization, and deployment targets, and (v) potential risks and barriers.


Chimuka et al. [Preprint]: Quantifying land carbon cycle feedbacks under negative CO2 emissions

V. Rachel Chimuka, Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye, Kirsten Zickfeld IN: Biogeosciences Discuss. [preprint],, in review, 2022

This study investigates land carbon cycle feedbacks under positive and negative CO2 emissions using an Earth system model driven with idealized scenarios of atmospheric CO2 increase and decrease, run in three modes. The results show that the magnitude of carbon cycle feedbacks differs between the atmospheric CO2 ramp-up (positive emissions) and ramp-down (negative emissions) phases.


„Shell sees its future in negative emissions“- Opinion

by Ina Möller, NRC Handelsblad (Dutch daily newspaper), published on Aug 18

How do Shell and the IPCC envision reaching global climate targets while still using fossil fuels? The answer to this question lies in the term ‘negative emissions’. Who has a right to these so-called ‘negative emissions‘, asks Ina Möller in this recent NRC Opinion article, which is the English translation of “Shell rekent zich rijk met negatieve emissies“. […] There is currently no consensus about what or whose emissions are considered ‘hard-to-abate’, and who has a right to continue emitting. And as long as individual companies like Shell claim such residual emissions for themselves, the limited capacity available for absorbing CO2 (a number that is still highly unclear), will no doubt be exceeded. It is therefore imperative that both modelers and policy makers are crystal clear about what they mean by residual emissions, and who they think has a right to claim these. Without a common understanding of how the pie should be divided, large emitters can continue to delay emissions reductions, and no-one can hold them accountable for it.“

New climate deal spurs hopes of more carbon storage projects

by Mead Gruver on

„Geologist Fred McLaughlin drills nearly two miles (3.2 kilometers) into the ground of northeastern Wyoming, far deeper than the thick coal seams that make this the top coal-mining region in the United States. McLaughlin and his University of Wyoming colleagues are studying whether tiny spaces in rock deep underground can permanently store vast volumes of greenhouse gas emitted by a coal-fired power plant.“