Assuming easy carbon removal from the atmosphere is a high-stakes gamble, scientists say

May 19, 2017 by Devon Ryan
Stanford researchers say carbon removal techniques such as ecosystem restoration are well understood, but others involve immature technologies and may not scale up as fast as policymakers hope. Credit: iStock

With the current pace of renewable energy deployment and emissions reductions efforts, the world is unlikely to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. This trend puts in doubt efforts to keep climate change damages from sea level rise, heat waves, drought and flooding in check. A potential solution being widely discussed is removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, also known as "negative emissions."

However, in a new perspective published in the journal Science, researchers at Stanford explain the risks of assuming carbon removal technologies can be deployed at a massive scale relatively quickly with low costs and limited side effects – with the future of the planet at stake.

"For any temperature limit, we've got a finite budget of how much heat-trapping gases we can put into the atmosphere. Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow," said Chris Field, a professor of biology and of Earth system science and director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

Reforestation and little tested technologies

Some strategies for carbon dioxide removal are well understood, such as planting trees that will store carbon from the atmosphere. Others involve immature, little tested technologies, such as bioenergy with and storage. In that strategy, carbon dioxide produced from biomass energy is stored deep underground. In another technology called direct air capture, chemical processes extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

"The models generating possible trajectories of bet on planetary-scale carbon removal in the second half of the century," said Katharine Mach, a senior research scientist at Stanford's School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. "For policymakers trying to limit the worst damages from climate change, that bet is reckless."

The researchers don't reject carbon capture, instead arguing that there are important near-term opportunities for carbon removal at modest scale, often with other benefits for nature and people, and critical needs now for developing the technologies of the future. But heavy reliance on biomass energy with carbon capture and storage could require tremendous land areas. For example, relying on the to achieve a temperature increase of 2 C or less could require an amount of productive land equivalent to about 25 to 80 percent of total global cropland, up to about 8 percent of all of the land on Earth.

"This puts mitigation, global food security and biodiversity protection on a collision course with no easy off-ramps," says Field.

Peak and decline

Many of the climate policy discussions supporting reliance on atmospheric carbon removal focus on the idea of "peak and decline," which involves global temperatures peaking and then dropping as carbon removal technologies surpass emissions. However, the scientists argue that peak and decline may ignore climate impacts that won't disappear even if the planet starts to cool. For example, if warming triggers collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, the resulting would continue for hundreds of years.

Further, Field and Mach warn that hoping carbon removal technologies will kick in may delay concrete actions that could be taken now.

"At the right scale, removal approaches are a key tool in the climate solutions kit," Mach said. "Avoiding can-kicking ethics, however, means putting aside assumptions that massive deployments will easily materialize decades into the future. Instead, we need to embrace whole-hearted mitigation today."

Ultimately, the scientists support a balanced approach that includes research and development of carbon removal technologies but also makes use of available means to limit and reduce emissions, such as investing in renewable energy sources.

"In managing the risks of a changing , we need a diversified game plan. An appealing long shot is not a plan and it is not a good way to protect the planet on which we depend," said Field.

Explore further: Climate stabilization: Planting trees cannot replace cutting CO2 emissions

More information: Christopher B. Field et al. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9726

Related Stories

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

Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining will be unavoidable

June 26, 2017

Biodiversity losses from deep-sea mining are unavoidable and possibly irrevocable, an international team of 15 marine scientists, resource economists and legal scholars argue in a letter published today in the journal Nature ...

Iron chemistry matters for ocean carbon uptake

June 26, 2017

For many years, scientists have speculated that seeding the ocean with iron might help to stave off climate change. Iron in seawater promotes the growth of phytoplankton, which in turn devours carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ...

8 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BubbaNicholson
1.6 / 5 (8) May 20, 2017
Heat is the problem, not necessarily the additional heat retention from CO2. A cursory look at the ongoing planet-wide photosynthetic reaction evidences that CO2 is the limiting ingredient. Photosynthesis will increase in proportion to increased CO2, evidenced by the greening of Antartica.
The obvious solution is to reduce solar illumination of the earth by orbiting or L2 placement of very large, very light balloons, like echo 2 in the early 1960's. Orbits over the equator would reduce illumination best, over hurricane nursery areas, fewer of those storms would form. Reduce solar illumination by 1.7% and the earth would stop warming. About 6 SpaceX Falcon 9's full of deflated balloons (they self-inflate in the vacuum of space) would do the trick, about $1.2 billion. It's far cheaper and far faster to solve this problem than untrained, untutored "ecologists" estimate for their wild schemes.
rodkeh
1.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2017
There is NO threat from CO2!
There is nothing to fear but fear itself!
CO2 is a blessing and a gift, it is absolutely idiotic to try to artificially remove it.
We need to be producing as much CO2 as is humanly possible if we want to thrive in the future!
rodkeh
1.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2017
It is unconscionable of Phys.org to continuously engage in this type of fear mongering disinformation!

howhot3
4.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2017
Just to repeat a message i said, "Yeap, I think in 100 years or so, we can all cheer when the deniers receive their 'Darwin Awards' for being the most pig headed, stubborn, contrarian creatures on earth. Let me recommend to the climate deniers do not vaccinate your kids. You can speed things up." Yeap, you can't get much more dumber than climate change denial.

Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
You paint the oceans silver with water paint.

That way it would reflect the sunlight back into space.

nrauhauser
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2017
Climate change denial trolls are a curious lot. I know some of it is funded, but I think there are just a lot of bored children who've taken it up as a means to aggravate educated, thoughtful folk.

There are occasional hopeful articles about various capture technologies, none of which seem likely to scale, even if we had the political will to try.

Overall, I think this is going to go very badly for our species. We face an intractable problem that's an existential threat for a good portion of us. We can't have honest, fact based conversations about it, so we can't even begin to address it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2017
Relying on big future deployments of carbon removal technologies is like eating lots of dessert today, with great hopes for liposuction tomorrow

We should also take into account that we'll be too busy throwing money at not having coastal cities drown to be able to invest in large scale carbon dioxide removal.

The "scientists will figure it out"-approach to government is lunacy. Yes, scientists do figure out amazing stuff. But you never know when it will happen. Science isn't engineering.

I do remember one science manager in my first research job actually asking me: "How long will it take you to invent this? Can you draw me up a timeline?"
How is anyone supposed to answer something like this with any kind of sincerity?
leetennant
not rated yet May 24, 2017

The "scientists will figure it out"-approach to government is lunacy. Yes, scientists do figure out amazing stuff. But you never know when it will happen. Science isn't engineering.


Also "the scientists will figure it out" only works if you actually fund the science and the infrastructure they'll need to implement solutions. Increasing emissions while simultaneously defunding everything we need to deal with the problem is insane.

Also, there is no way humans can be trusted with large scale geoengineering. We can't even get rid of the cane beetle without causing an ecological disaster.

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.