Thread by @Oliver_Geden

Together w/ @Peters_Glen & @vscottedinburgh I published a new (open access) article in @Climate_Policy, on how best to target carbon dioxide removal in the European Union, to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…

In our article, we compare two basic approaches:
'comprehensive' (targeting the EU's potential share of global CDR) &
'limited' (focusing on CDR needed in context of net zero emissions)
Politically, the 'limited' approach is preferable
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
#lowcarbonEU2050

EU 'Comprehensive CDR' approach is mainly based on numbers calculated by Peters/Geden 2017 (rdcu.be/bajez) and @nemvaughan et al. 2018 (iopscience.iop.org/article/10.108…), on the order of 50+ Gt of gross CO2 removal by 2100 for EU
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
#lowcarbonEU2050

A 'limited CDR' approach would focus not so much on long-term net negative emissions (as EU's fair share to keep temperatures below 2C), but on offsetting residual CO2/GHG emissions with CO2 removal to reach 'net zero' as soon as possible. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10… #lowcarbonEU2050

Variations of 'limited CDR' after reaching net zero (while residual emissions keep going down)
(1) maintaining net zero with slightly decreasing CDR levels (left)
(2) maintaining CDR levels with slightly decreasing net emissions (right)
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10… #lowcarbonEU2050

'Limited CDR' could be first step in sequential strategy: learning more on CO2 removal while pursuing 'net zero' can lead to higher level of expertise and trust, enabling EU - and other OECD countries - to go 'net negative' at scales required for 1.5-2C tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…