This thread seems to get two things wrong
1. Emissions need to be as close as possible to zero AND CO₂ removal is needed in addition (it is not either/or)
2. Mitigation is currently FAR cheaper than removal (removal may help costly mitigation, like air to fuels for aviation)
1. Emissions need to be as close as possible to zero AND CO₂ removal is needed in addition (it is not either/or)
2. Mitigation is currently FAR cheaper than removal (removal may help costly mitigation, like air to fuels for aviation)
If CO₂ removal was used to just offset existing emissions (instead of reducing emissions), it is far cheaper to deploy energy efficiency, solar, batteries, CCS, etc, then recapture emissions directly from air (expensive). Even if social cost was $80/tCO₂, still take cheapest?
In emission scenarios (shown for 1.5°C), CO₂ removal has two roles:
* Small: Offset hard to mitigate sectors (the brown does not go to zero, need CO₂ removal)
* Big: Offset earlier emissions (already emitted too much, which gets worse if we don't mitigate drastically today)
* Small: Offset hard to mitigate sectors (the brown does not go to zero, need CO₂ removal)
* Big: Offset earlier emissions (already emitted too much, which gets worse if we don't mitigate drastically today)
Most debate whether it is possible to achieve the necessary scale of CO₂ removal (green in previous tweet). It is not really an option to continue emitting (don't take the brown part to zero) & instead offset it entirely with much larger CO₂ removal (green).
(Please correct me if I misunderstood @Noahpinion, but your thread gave the impression you see CO₂ removal as a replacement for mitigation?)
