A reliance on negative emissions technologies is locking in carbon addiction

October 14, 2016
A reliance on negative emissions technologies is locking in carbon addiction

The Paris Agreement on climate change and the carbon-reduction plans of many governments (including the UK) are unwittingly reliant on unproven technologies to suck hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.

The journal Science has published a Perspective which reveals the scale and widespread reliance on 'negative emissions technologies', which remain at best experimental. Nevertheless the models being used to advise governments on what action to take are dominated by such highly speculative technologies – with many assuming their mass roll-out beginning within the decade. 

"The beguiling appeal of relying on future negative emission technologies (NETs) is that they delay the need for stringent and politically challenging polices today – they pass the buck for reducing carbon on to " said Kevin Anderson, co-author of the paper and Professor at the Universities of Manchester and Uppsala. "But if these Dr. Strangelove technologies fail to deliver at the planetary scale envisaged, our own children will be forced to endure the consequences of rapidly rising temperatures and a highly unstable climate."

The scale of carbon removal emerging from the models underpinning governments' thinking on is breathtaking. By the middle of the century many of the models assume as much removal of from the atmosphere by negative emission technologies as is absorbed naturally today by all of the world's oceans and plants combined.

Despite the modelling community's reliance on negative emission technologies, there are no proven means by which we can remove carbon dioxide at such unprecedented scales" says Dr Glen Peters, a Senior Researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO) and co-author of the paper.

"Yet almost all of the scenarios with a likely chance of not exceeding 2°C and considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) assume that the large scale roll out of negative emission technologies is technically and economically viable."

Dr Peters points to how "Carbon dioxide removal is an extremely attractive technology for fossil fuel companies, as they can continue production whilst shifting the burden of mitigation on to future generations."

It is not well understood by many decision makers, NGOs and even academics working on climate change, that the climate models informing governments are so dependent on such a massive deployment of speculative and unproven technologies.

"The inclusion of the still more ambitious 1.5°C goal in Paris, relies on a belief in even greater levels of carbon removal. Without negative emissions, holding to a 1.5°C rise demands that the global economy fully decarbonises within a decade," says Professor Anderson. "Negative emission technologies are not an insurance policy. They are a high-risk gamble with tomorrow's generations, particularly those living in poor and climatically vulnerable communities, set to pay the price if our high stakes bet fails to deliver as promised."

Explore further: Immediate and aggressive action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says new study

More information: K. S. Thygesen et al. Making the most of materials computations, Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aah4776

Related Stories

Paris climate goals mean emissions need to drop below zero

December 24, 2015

If governments are serious about the global warming targets they adopted in Paris, scientists say they have two options: eliminating fossil fuels immediately or finding ways to undo their damage to the climate system in the ...

Climate scientist hits out at IPCC projections

October 13, 2015

As a new chairman is appointed to the Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) a University of Manchester climate expert has said headline projections from the organisation about future warming are 'wildly over optimistic.'

CO2 removal can lower costs of climate protection

April 12, 2013

Directly removing CO2 from the air has the potential to alter the costs of climate change mitigation. It could allow prolonging greenhouse-gas emissions from sectors like transport that are difficult, thus expensive, to turn ...

Recommended for you

Mysterious deep-Earth seismic signature explained

November 22, 2017

New research on oxygen and iron chemistry under the extreme conditions found deep inside the Earth could explain a longstanding seismic mystery called ultralow velocity zones. Published in Nature, the findings could have ...

Scientists dispute missing dryland forests

November 21, 2017

Scientists are disputing the possibility that a significant portion of the world's forests have been missed in an earlier accounting of ecological diversity.

43 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2016
Why would it be bad for the planet to develop negative emissions technologies?
optical
Oct 14, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2016
Why it should be? It drastically increases the energy production cost.


That doesn't matter as long as the competition is yet more massively expensive and/or unable to meet demand.

With no large scale energy storage technology and near-universal hysteria against nuclear power, nations become reliant on fossil fuels to manage their grids - yet they try to pretend that they are not. With carbon taxes and other "incentives", the cost of energy goes up anyhow, so carbon capture and other methods become attractive to use.

optical
Oct 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2016
Exactly. " No proven technologies exist........."
katesisco
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2016
That didn't take long. No sooner than we agree to fine the polluters--from the stack---than the first amendments are on the way. No big global multi conglomerate is going to be fined is what the fine print here says. That means a tax on the user!!
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2016
"No big global multi conglomerate is going to be fined is what the fine print here says. That means a tax on the user!!"

It is statements like this that really irk me. The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy.
optical
Oct 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2016
Government has the most power over impoverished people. Thus, concentrating energy use among the privileged few via carbon restrictions fits right into the progressive One World Government plan.
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2016
It is statements like this that really irk me. The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy.
And who do you think should pay all the cost of energy?
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2016
MR
Thus, concentrating energy use among the privileged few via carbon restrictions fits right into the progressive One World Government plan.
Whooo we all better be scared Except that one of the great benefits of solar panels - is that you can put them on your own roof - and don't need no centralized energy system. Oh you say - but there is no storage technology that would allow you to be off the grid. Be patient MR conspiracy - it is coming - http://renewecono...ge-20511 So MR - what are you doing to oppose the one world gvt???? Maybe you could organize a micro-grid in your neighborhood - https://ilsr.org/...rogrids/
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2016
"And who do you think should pay all the cost of energy?"

I was referring to the people who state that the "Energy Companies" should be taxed because of the supposed pollution that they create.
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2016
the existing renewable methods merely transfer the production of emissions during burning of fossil fuels to production of emissions during mining & production of raw sources.
Only until renewable methods can be utilized.

If you can understand why a bank's car loan is preferable to a car dealer's "0% financing," you should be able to calculate a diminishing balance of fossil fuels needed.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2016
I was referring to the people who state that the "Energy Companies" should be taxed because of the supposed pollution that they create.
That response does not answer the question. You get all irked at this situation - because in your words
The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy.
I am asking who you think should pay all the costs of energy. Then you go off into the one world gvt. shit. But solar panels are a great hope for empowering individuals to take control of power into their own hands - and break the grip of gvt run monopolies.
dustywells
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2016
greenonions, on July 20 you stated
Opinion is irrelevant. Evidence is what you should look for. Opinion is what is promoted by deniers - to obfuscate.
and now you are clearly asking for an opinion when you state
I am asking who you think should pay all the costs of energy.
Should you not be asking for evidence instead of opinion?
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2016
dustywells - I am responding to a statement by MR. MR says that he/she gets irked when people make statements suggesting
The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy.
Do you notice that we are talking about MR getting irked? I am simply asking for clarifiaction - regarding who MR thinks SHOULD pay the cost of energy. Asking for clarification regarding a statement being made - that is clearly a statement of opinion - is different than asking for evidence supporting an assertion of fact.
ForFreeMinds
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
"That didn't take long. No sooner than we agree to fine the polluters--from the stack---than the first amendments are on the way. No big global multi conglomerate is going to be fined is what the fine print here says. That means a tax on the user!!"

When you "agree to fine the polluters -from the stack", then you're agreeing to force the people who buy energy from these polluters, to pay more.

What makes you think a company will stay in business when the government forces it to lose money via its legislation, regulations, and the permit process, whereby politicians decide which rich 1% owners of which energy producers will make profits, and which will not (depending upon who provides the most campaign cash and other favors)? And guess what, the price increases from the politically connected energy producers will be paid out of your pocket.

That's what you get when politicians control markets instead of consumers in free markets.
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
greenonions: You are apparently too opinionated to properly read MR166's first post.

katesisco said: "No big global multi conglomerate is going to be fined is what the fine print here says. That means a tax on the user!!"

MR166 said: "It is statements like this that really irk me." Clearly in reference to katesisco's assertion.

In that light you and MR166 are in obvious agreement that "The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy."
dustywells
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
ForFreeMinds
What makes you think a company will stay in business when the government forces it to lose money via its legislation, regulations, and the permit process, whereby politicians decide which rich 1% owners of which energy producers will make profits, and which will not (depending upon who provides the most campaign cash and other favors)? And guess what, the price increases from the politically connected energy producers will be paid out of your pocket.
Is _that_ why Soros is now buying the coal mines?
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
"Is _that_ why Soros is now buying the coal mines?"

That very well could be a fact. He uses his political connections to put them out of business and then buys them for pennies on the dollar. Then he uses the same political power to make coal viable again. Perhaps it will be "discovered" the CO2 is not harmful after all. Ah, the pure evil genius of the .1%.

Why bother to create when you get a better return on your money purchasing a politician?
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2016
dustywells - I read MR's comment fully. I was simply asking for clarification. Who does MR think SHOULD pay the cost of energy? My question was very straightforward. Once again - here is MR's statement
The END USER and or taxpayer is always the one who pays all of the costs of energy.
I am simply asking a question. Then you get all twisted up - not understanding what was clearly a request for clarification.
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2016
greenonions
I am simply asking a question. Then you get all twisted up - not understanding what was clearly a request for clarification.
When I ask a question you are quick to label me a denier.

Since you purposely continue to harp on a statement that you chose to take out of context, I will label you as a TROLL.

I am beginning to accept that antigoracle is right about you.

Maybe you can tell us how complex the question is and offer a supporting link for us to read
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2016
Since you purposely continue to harp on a statement that you chose to take out of context, I will label you as a TROLL.
Perhaps then you will put me on ignore (as I have goracle - due to the fact that he/she is a disgusting troll) - and then you will stop hijacking threads. I have not taken anything out of context - I simply asked a question. It is so typical of the obfuscators on this board - to jump to "you are taking that out of context." It is a pattern of people with poor logic skills - who are clearly here to push a political agenda - rather than here to learn the neat stuff that the site has to offer. I hope you do put me on ignore - and you get a royal - good riddance from me...
ddaye
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2016
The scientific community has yet to apply itself to studying the operating systems of civilization.

"It is not well understood by many decision makers," What's the evidence that the science community understands well who the decision makers actually are? None that I've seen.
Shootist
1 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2016
Remember to kiss a fracker today.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2016
Since you purposely continue to harp on a statement that you chose to take out of context, I will label you as a TROLL.
@dusty
funny... i've seen you do the exact same thing

more to the point, when given factual validated studies you simply vanished and decided to troll Mikey instead...

so the question i have for you to answer is: why are you really here?

are you being paid to harass anyone who follows the science and is pro-AGW/warming by people? like the following anti-science crowd: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

or are you really seeking information?
if you are really seeking information, then why are you ignoring the science and usually posting rhetoric from anti-AGW or anti-warming threads supported by the folk in the study i linked?

it sure isn't because of honest skepticism, because i was an honest skeptic, but i simply couldn't ignore the evidence...

so.... what is it?
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2016
Perhaps then you will put me on ignore (as I have goracle - due to the fact that he/she is a disgusting troll) - and then you will stop hijacking threads.
-- onion jackass hee...hawws again.
This is the jackass who claims he knows all the science and evidence, yet he boasted about his recent 1200 mile, CO2 spewing jaunt, during which he emitted over a tenth of the US annual average, in JUST 2 DAYS. Now he believes that by hijacking threads and braying at the heretics, he's saving the world. Ignore your own hypocrisy, you jackass.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
The scientific community has yet to apply itself to studying the operating systems of civilization
@ddaye
actually, this isn't entirely true: psychology and politics are well studied subjects
the problem is that they're also highly complex and subjective, and that the decisions of one aren't going to be the decisions of another

they're looking at how the decision makers are being manipulated by those with vested interests in ignoring the evidence too: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

What's the evidence that the science community understands well who the decision makers actually are?
the fact that they're trying to get politicians to follow the science and evidence is a biggie

one problem is that people follow politics like they do religion: they ignore evidence for the sake of their belief
http://journals.p....0075637

MR166
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2016
OMG Stumpy I just read your last link and the very first paragraph stated that all conservative opinions that might disagree with AGW are not science based.

Yea, the science is settled and the views of any others are pure BS. All I can say is good for you. As long as you are happy in your deluded world everything is just great !!!!!!!!!!!!
greenonions
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2016
MR - is this the paragraph you are talking about
Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a "hoax."
If it is - you and I definitely do not share a common language.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
"If it is - you and I definitely do not share a common language."

Perhaps not even a common planet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
"If it is - you and I definitely do not share a common language."

Or perhaps not even a common planet !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
the very first paragraph stated that all conservative opinions that might disagree with AGW are not science based
@MR
actually, no, it doesn't
it says that there is a measurable, noticeable trend in conservative politics that demonstrably indicates a lack of trust in science with, and i quote
Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe
it's not making the claim out of nowhere, but rather if you will look at the methods and evidence presented you will see that this is something that is noticeable... and measurable...

this isn't random political rhetoric but rather a studied measured statement of fact that is supported by various other studies, especially in psychological research regarding strong emotional attachments to things like religion and cultural beliefs, etc

feel free to refute with your own studies if you disagree
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
the very first paragraph stated that all conservative opinions that might disagree with AGW are not science based
@MR
no, it doesn't
it does state that the observed measured evidence directly demonstrates, and i quote:
Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe
if you want to take that out of context and make a delusional comment about it, that is your prerogative
however, it simply states the outcome of the measured data in the study

if you want to understand more, look at their methodology and data included in said study (not a blog, an actual study, mind you)

feel free to refute it with a study of your own if you like
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
the very first paragraph stated that all conservative opinions that might disagree with AGW are not science based
@MR
no, it doesn't
it does state that the observed measured evidence directly demonstrates, and i quote:
Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe
if you want to take that out of context and make a delusional comment about it, that is your prerogative
however, it simply states the outcome of the measured data in the study

if you want to understand more, look at their methodology and data included in said study (not a blog, an actual study, mind you)

feel free to refute it with a study of your own if you like
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2016
@MR cont'd
Perhaps not even a common planet
apparently on your planet literacy isn't common
perhaps you can ask someone what that paragraph means?
Yea, the science is settled and the views of any others are pure BS
actually, what is says is that people like you read [x] and because of your political, religious affiliation or conspiracist ideation, you don't understand it or you misinterpret it, adding into it an interpretation that is malignant or conspiratorial...

you know, kinda like exactly what you just did with the above study?
As long as you are happy in your deluded world
LOL - you're the one making up interpretations and delusional arguments based upon political rhetoric and proving that your arguments are without evidence

heck, you just demonstrated it above!

(PS - there was a big system glitch, which is why the multiple posts above, etc)

as i said above:
feel free to refute with a study of your own - if you can
greenonions
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2016
Hey MR - Captain and I seem to share a common language - and agree on your completely delusional reading of the paragraph in question. My suggestion - print off a copy of the paragraph - and take it to some teachers you know. Ask them if this is an accurate representation of the paragraph meaning
all conservative opinions that might disagree with AGW are not science based.
I showed it to one teacher - who said you are nuts....
MR166
not rated yet Oct 18, 2016
deleted
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2016
Captain and I seem to share a common language
-- onion jackass hee...hawwss again.
That's not all this jackass and Cap'n Stumpid share.... try a lone neuron.
This onion jackass boasted about his recent 1200 mile, CO2 spewing jaunt, during which he emitted over a tenth of the US annual average, in JUST 2 DAYS. So now, this jackass believes that by braying at the heretics he's saving the world.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2016
are you being paid to harass anyone who follows the science and is pro-AGW/warming by people? like the following anti-science crowd:
Please forgive the delay in answering your question as I can not be on PO 24/7 like you and the rest of the alarmist cabal since I am not being paid to be here and do have to earn a legitimate income.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2016
Captain Stumpy
or are you really seeking information?
I really was seeking information but this seems to be the wrong venue for meaningful discussion. Most of the regular 'contributors' act like self aggrandizing poseurs whose prime purpose is to slander everyone who does not appear to adhere unquestioningly to the cabal's faulty understanding of the universe.

Mike_Massen and I had a reasonably good discussion until you butted in with your usual MO of diversion and derision.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy
why are you ignoring the science
How do you expect me to carry on a discussion with you if you do not even recognize the difference between 'questioning science' and 'questioning a conclusion?'

When I study the data available, I may be unable to reach a conclusion and I may have more questions but in your world those questions are prohibited.

Who, then, is practicing the better science? The one asking the questions or the one who wishes to stifle the questions?

TBC
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2016
Captain Stumpy
why are you ... usually posting rhetoric from anti-AGW or anti-warming threads supported by the folk in the study i linked?
Any similarity between my questions or rhetoric and the 'rhetoric from anti-AGW or anti-warming threads' may be due to a similar understanding of science.

You may find this difficult to believe, but I do not visit anti-AGW sites. I am fully capable of reaching my own conclusions based on my growing understanding of the complex interplay of the atmospheric processes applied to the raw data whenever possible.

I do not have the need to swallow something chewed, swallowed, digested and excreted by someone else.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.