Schlagwort: negative emissions

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], https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-227, 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.

LINK

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, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-022-10030-9

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.

LINK

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], https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-168, 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.

LINK

„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 phys.org

„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.“

LINK

Williamson and Gattuso (2022): Carbon removal using coastal blue carbon ecosystems is uncertain and unreliable, with questionable climatic cost-effectiveness

Phillip Williamson and Jean-Pierre Gattuso IN: Front. Clim., 28 July 2022, Sec. Negative Emission Technologies, https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.853666

The focus here is on assessing the feasibility of achieving quantified and secure carbon removal (negative emissions) through the restoration of coastal vegetation. Seven issues that affect the reliability of carbon accounting for this approach are considered: high variability in carbon burial rates; errors in determining carbon burial rates; lateral carbon transport; fluxes of methane and nitrous oxide; carbonate formation and dissolution; vulnerability to future climate change; and vulnerability to non-climatic factors.

LINK

Sovacool et al. (2022): Climate protection or privilege? A whole systems justice milieu of twenty negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Chad M. Baum, Sean Low IN: Political Geography 97, 102702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2022.102702.

In this study, the authors utilize an expert interview exercise (N = 125) to examine the whole systems justice issues associated with ten negative emissions and ten solar geoengineering technologies. They ask: What equity and justice concerns arise with these 20 options? What particular vulnerable groups could be affected? What risks do these options entail for communities or the climate?

LINK

Open consultation – Greenhouse gas removals (GGR) business models

Government UK; Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

This consultation is seeking views on the design of a business model to attract private investment and enable GGR projects to deploy at scale from the mid-to-late 2020s. The consultation is open to all organisations and individuals, but will be of particular interest to those with an interest in GGR technologies and negative emissions markets. This consultation closes at 11:45pm on 27 September 2022.

LINK