Thread by @Oliver_Geden

This has not changed from earlier #IPCC assessments (like #AR5 or #SR15), but, not surprisingly, trade-offs with other forms of land-use are better highlighted in #SRCCL

https://twitter.com/IPCC_CH/status/1159379247565287424

All mitigation pathway archetypes for 1.5-2 °C (RCP1.9/2.6) include large volumes of carbon dioxide removal, even the very optimistic Pathway 6 that excludes engineered CDR (represented by BECCS) but relies on a large land sink ipcc.ch/srccl-report-d… (ch 2.6.2) #SRCCL

Cumulative CDR volumes by 2100 for these 6 archetype mitigation pathways are quite high
P1: 395 Gt BECCS + 73 Gt Afforestation
P2: 466 Gt BECCS + 117 Gt AF
P3: 944 Gt BECCS only
P4: 300 Gt BECCS + 428 Gt AF
P5: 252 Gt BECCS + 128 Gt AF
P6: 124 Gt AF only
#SRCCL

Already in 2050, gross CDR levels are quite substantial in 1.5-2C pathways, reaching 10-20 Gt p.a. by 2100. Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions always stay above zero (bc they are hard/imposible to abate), need to be offset by CO2 removal ipcc.ch/srccl-report-d… (ch 2.6.2) #SRCCL

Of course, CDR only one of many response options necessary to mitigate & manage climate change risks. It has been growing in importance in mitigation modelling over last decade, and will now probably become part of mainstream policymaking ipcc.ch/srccl-report-d… (ch 6.2) #SRCCL