MSGID: 1:317/3 64951ffb   
   PID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
    Will engineered carbon removal solve the climate crisis?    
      
     Date:   
         June 22, 2023   
     Source:   
         International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis   
     Summary:   
         A new study explored fairness and feasibility in deep mitigation   
         pathways with novel carbon dioxide removal, taking into account   
         institutional capacity to implement mitigation measures.   
      
      
         Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIN Email   
      
   ==========================================================================   
   FULL STORY   
   ==========================================================================   
   A new IIASA-led study explored fairness and feasibility in deep   
   mitigation pathways with novel carbon dioxide removal, taking into   
   account institutional capacity to implement mitigation measures.   
      
   Meeting the 1.5DEGC goal of the Paris Agreement will require ambitious   
   climate action this decade. Difficult questions remain as to how warming   
   can be limited within technical realities while respecting the common but   
   differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of nations   
   on the way to a sustainable future. Meeting this challenge requires   
   substantial emissions reductions to reach net-zero emissions globally.   
      
   Among the new options being studied in scientific literature, engineered   
   Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) like Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Carbon   
   Capture and Storage (DACCS), is a potentially promising technology to   
   help bridge this gap.   
      
   DACCS captures carbon by passing ambient air over chemical solvents,   
   which can be considered a form of CDR if the captured carbon is stored   
   permanently underground. But whether these novel technologies can help   
   make ambitious goals more attainable, or whether they can help reach   
   them more equitably remains an open question.   
      
   In their study published in Environmental Research Letters, an   
   interdisciplinary research group led by IIASA scientists developed new   
   scenarios exploring fairness and feasibility in deep mitigation pathways,   
   including novel CDR technologies. For the first time, the team implemented   
   DACCS in a well-established integrated assessment model called MESSAGEix-   
   GLOBIOM, and studied how this technology could impact global mitigation   
   pathways under different scenarios of environmental policy effectiveness   
   based on country-level governance indicators.   
      
   "In current policy debates, concerns about the political feasibility and   
   fairness of the current generation of climate mitigation scenarios are   
   raised, and DACCS is often proposed as a possible solution. In our study   
   we quantified under what conditions and how DACCS might address those   
   concerns," explains Elina Brutschin, a study coauthor and researcher in   
   the Transformative Institutional and Social Solutions Research Group of   
   the IIASA Energy, Climate, and Environment Program.   
      
   The researchers emphasize that the goal of limiting warming to 1.5DEGC   
   does not change when considering novel forms of CDR. For a broader   
   perspective on pathways to limit warming, the research team investigated   
   how novel CDR interacts under different assumptions of technoeconomic   
   progress and the evolution of regional institutional capacity. The   
   researchers highlight the risks of dependency on unproven carbon removal   
   while also discussing the role novel CDR and similar technologies could   
   play in the future for developing countries.   
      
   The results indicate that novel CDR can keep pre-Paris climate targets   
   within reach when accounting for such risks, but that increasing   
   institutional capacity beyond historical trends is necessary for   
   limiting warming to the Paris Agreement's 1.5DEGC goal, even with novel   
   CDR processes. The study also suggests that substantially improving   
   institutional capacity to implement environmental policies, regulations,   
   and legislation is critical to keep warming below 2DEGC if new forms of   
   CDR fail to emerge in the near future.   
      
   The authors further point out that, when accounting for the possible   
   future evolution of novel CDR technologies combined with inherent risks,   
   the 'fairness' of overall outcomes did not meaningfully improve. DACCS did   
   not impact near-term required global mitigation ambition, and additional   
   carbon removal in developed economies accounted for only a small component   
   of the mitigation necessary to achieve stringent climate targets. This is   
   because the removal of carbon dioxide in these areas does not compensate   
   sufficiently for their historical emissions by mid-century.   
      
   The inability of DACCS to enhance the fairness of outcomes, like   
   cumulative carbon emissions, in 1.5DEGC scenarios, emphasizes the notion   
   that meeting global climate targets is a global effort requiring an   
   'all-of-the-above' mitigation strategy. There is no room for flexibility   
   when it comes to reaching climate goals.   
      
   The results, however, show that engineered removals can play a role in   
   making the post-peak temperature stabilization (or decline) phase more   
   equitable. This means that the full timeframe under which accounting   
   takes place is critical for exploring fair outcomes that are agreeable   
   by most Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate   
   Change (UNFCCC).   
      
   "Our results show that new technologies for removing carbon from the   
   atmosphere can play a role in ambitious climate policy, but they won't   
   be a silver bullet for solving the climate crisis. Developed countries   
   especially need to cut emissions by more than half this decade,   
   primarily by reducing existing sources of emissions while scaling up   
   CDR technologies to be in line with the Paris Agreement," says study   
   lead author Matthew Gidden, a researcher in the IIASA Energy, Climate,   
   and Environment Program.   
      
   The researchers emphasize that there is a clear need for the modeling   
   community to assess the role of novel CDR in a structured way to better   
   understand robust outcomes and insights versus observations related to   
   a given model framework or approach. Looking forward, these issues can   
   be explicitly included in scenario design to arrive at more equitable   
   outcomes while incorporating political realities of the capabilities of   
   governments and institutions to enact strong climate policy.   
      
       * RELATED_TOPICS   
             o Earth_&_Climate   
                   # Global_Warming # Climate # Environmental_Issues #   
                   Environmental_Awareness   
             o Science_&_Society   
                   # Environmental_Policies # Resource_Shortage #   
                   World_Development # Ocean_Policy   
       * RELATED_TERMS   
             o Climate_change_mitigation o Carbon_dioxide_sink o   
             Climate_engineering o Carbon_cycle o Carbon_dioxide o Justice   
             o Forest o Carbon_monoxide   
      
   ==========================================================================   
   Story Source: Materials provided by   
   International_Institute_for_Applied_Systems_Analysis.   
      
   Note: Content may be edited for style and length.   
      
      
   ==========================================================================   
   Journal Reference:   
      1. Matthew J Gidden, Elina Brutschin, Gaurav Ganti, Gamze U"nlu",   
      Behnam   
         Zakeri, Oliver Fricko, Benjamin Mitterrutzner, Francesco Lovat,   
         Keywan Riahi. Fairness and feasibility in deep mitigation pathways   
         with novel carbon dioxide removal considering institutional capacity   
         to mitigate.   
      
         Environmental Research Letters, 2023; DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/acd8d5   
   ==========================================================================   
      
   Link to news story:   
   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230622120847.htm   
      
   --- up 1 year, 16 weeks, 3 days, 10 hours, 50 minutes   
    * Origin: -=> Castle Rock BBS <=- Now Husky HPT Powered! (1:317/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 15/0 106/201 114/705 123/120 153/7715 218/700 226/30 227/114   
   SEEN-BY: 229/110 112 113 307 317 400 426 428 470 664 700 291/111 292/854   
   SEEN-BY: 298/25 305/3 317/3 320/219 396/45 5075/35   
   PATH: 317/3 229/426