Technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere will need to be integrated into climate policy ...

[OKIsItJustMe]

https://easac.eu/press-releases/details/technologies-for-removing-co2-from-the-atmosphere-will-need-to-be-integrated-into-climate-policy-in/

19.02.2019
Technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere will need to be integrated into climate policy in 2019, say national science academies across the EU

Downloads

EASAC commentary Forest bioenergy etc.

Links

EASAC Report on "Negative Emission Techologies"
EASAC statement on "Extreme Weather Events in Europe"
EASAC Report on "European Forests"

EASAC released publications in 2018 that urged policy-makers to take immediate action on CO2 mitigation including using Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to offset large CO2 emitters. EASAC notes that technologies and techniques for carbon dioxide removal (“negative emission technologies”) will need to take on increased importance in the EU’s climate change strategy this year and in the near future. CCS will be critical to this task. In addition, forest bioenergy policy is not delivering effective climate change mitigation and policy-makers should avoid classifying all biomass as ‘renewable,’ which is not supported by evidence.

In a new statement, the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which represents the national science academies of the EU Member States, Norway, and Switzerland, says its latest analysis reveals that technologies and techniques for removing CO2 from the atmosphere are becoming even more significant with the failure to reverse the growth in global emissions. However, the huge risks of relying on future deployment of as yet unproven technologies means that EASAC re-emphasises – in line with its 2018 report - that mitigation must remain the highest priority, including the rapid development of viable CCS technology and business models. These negative emission technologies cannot make up for a lack of effort to mitigate CO2, but the size of the gap between current emission trends and those needed to meet Paris Agreement targets makes such technologies appear increasingly necessary. EASAC thus concludes it is time to include these in the EU’s future climate strategy. At present, a single technology has not emerged as the best choice and a suite of technologies will likely be necessary.

“As mitigation remains inadequate to keep warming within Paris Agreement Targets, applying negative emissions technologies at a potentially huge scale is increasingly likely to be necessary. Applying such technologies at the scale required would require the development of a new industry close to the same size as the current fossil fuel industry – a huge diversion of economic resources within the economy. To avoid dangerous climate change and bolster its economy, therefore, the EU should be examining the most likely technologies to be relevant to Europe’s future industries,” said Professor Michael Norton, Director of Environment at EASAC.

…

[The_jackalope]

1. Unfortunately, there is no technology that is powerful enough to do the job.

Negative emission technologies

In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

“Scenarios and projections that suggest that NETs’ future contribution to CO2 removal will allow Paris targets to be met appear optimistic on the basis of current knowledge and should not form the basis of developing, analysing, and comparing scenarios of longer-term energy pathways for the EU. Relying on NETs to compensate for failures to adequately mitigate emissions may have serious implications for future generations," state the European science academies.

Adaptation, not mitigation, is the approach we must follow.
We will be forced to adapt as the effects of climate change become undeniable.

[Boomer]

2. Just a tad premature, eh?

Let's talk about changing the models after we have a viable technology that scales sufficiently to make a difference.

All this talk of this hypothetical solution being "necessary" is just smoke-and-mirrors to avoid saying "We're fucked."

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. No, I don't think it's premature

I've been saying it for several years now. There's no question we need to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Here's what James Hansen tells us:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf

…

Extraction of CO₂ from the air is required, in addition to emission phasedown, in order to bring global temperature back close to the Holocene range (Fig. 28b). Without extraction, global temperature remains well above the Holocene level for centuries, as shown in Fig. 28a, leaving a danger of consequences such as large sea level rise, albeit such consequences are not as certain as with constant emissions.

Extraction of as much as approximately 100 PgC is possible via improved agricultural and forestry practices, which store more carbon in the soil and biosphere, based on estimates discussed in the Burden (2017) paper. Some researchers have suggested that such potential quasi-natural extraction could be as high as 150 PgC (Robertson, 2018). This greater extraction, in combination with 6 percent per year reduction of fossil fuel emissions, would return global temperature close to the Holocene range by the end of this century (Fig. 28b).

…

[Boomer]

4. You misunderstood me

I'm well aware that we NEED a carbon extraction technology, but it's premature to plan as if have that technology in place or to change models on the assumption that we will have it "someday soon."

Until we have a workable, scalable technology in place, we must proceed with worst-case scenarios, not fantasies.