Thread by @stv_smth

How to manage the inclusion of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures in climate targets? I have a comment on it out today in @CommsEarth:

nature.com/articles/s4324…

It's open access, but here's the Twitter-friendly version...🧵

Several papers and reports have flagged that "net-zero" targets allow some level of CDR to balance out residual emissions, and worry that this could dilute action in various ways. They propose that the way to fix this is to keep separate targets for emissions and removals.

This isn't a theoretical argument, it's live now. The UK and other have set net zero targets; the EU is actively thinking about whether/how to include CDR.

nature.com/articles/d4158…

My tl;dr headline is this: separate targets are at best only a partial approach to deal with these concerns, and could be a distraction from the much greater transparency needed. Instead, here are three things that should go with any (net) target:

👉1) Set the targets on a timescale consistent with achieving climate goals without overshoot. Importantly this means ambitious near-term action, which is the distinguishing feature of pathways with lower peak temperatures.

👉2) Publish a detailed plan of the measures to achieve the targets. Any traded offsets used must have high environmental integrity. The plan should be robust to potential under-delivery of measures. (All of this pertains to both emissions and CDR, btw).

👉3) Set out the carbon storage involved, and have plans to monitor and manage it. This includes CO2 stored from point sources (not just CDR) and should be differentiated by type (e.g. in trees or underground). Storage requires monitoring and plans to reduce & deal with leakage.

This piece owes a debt to other leaders on this topic including @mclaren_erc, @Bankfieldbecky, @Oliver_Geden, @FelixSchenuit, @Kelly_Levin_. Would be interested to know what they and others think!