Photo by ClimeWorks

Even with deep emissions reductions, all pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C include carbon dioxide removal. As the field grows, tracking responsible deployment, governance and investment is becoming increasingly important.

The necessity of carbon removal in limiting global warming

Climate modeling scenarios indicate that even with deep emissions reductions, all pathways that limit warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) include carbon dioxide removal — hereafter referred to as carbon removal or CDR. The amount of CDR ultimately needed depends on how much emissions are reduced in the near term: the more emissions are reduced in the short term, the less CDR will be necessary in the future to meet global climate goals.
 

A diverse suite of carbon removal approaches will be needed

CDR can come from conventional or natural approaches like reforestation, but to effectively manage tradeoffs associated with each approach (including the saturation of natural sinks in the longer term, limited available land area and permanence), we need to develop a broad portfolio of approaches that also includes novel, or technological, CDR approaches.
 

Projecting the scale of carbon removal needed

Climate modeling scenarios show a wide range of reliance on CDR technologies, from less than one billion to more than five billion metric tons of removal annually by midcentury. Limiting future reliance on carbon removal to the lower end of this range will require greater focus on rapid near-term emissions reductions.
 

The role of stakeholders in scaling carbon removal

To reach gigatonne-scale CDR capacity, the public and private sectors and other stakeholders all have a role to play to increase funding for research, development and deployment of CDR technologies, expand enabling infrastructure, and develop robust governance structures that prioritize equity and sustainability.
 

The rapid growth and investment in carbon removal technologies

CDR has already made significant strides, transforming in less than a decade from a little-known concept to a well-defined need, with new technologies attracting billions of dollars in public and private financing. As the industry remains in early stages of development, there is an opportunity to help define standards and best practices for scaling up.

Tracking progress on global outcomes

Key enablers and barriers to change

Data challenges

There are two large data-related challenges pertaining to this shift. One is a lack of widely accepted criteria at the global level to determine what constitutes environmental and social harms in the context of resource extraction and harvesting. Setting such criteria requires identifying what harms are significant and relevant to a wide range of activities of resource extraction, as well as determining and often quantifying the level of resource governance so as to avoid the harms of concern practically. An International Resource Panel report, “Mineral Resource Governance in the 21st Century,” and a scientific paper reviewing 25 sustainability certification programs were a good starting point for us to select indicators in this shift. Still, what exactly qualifies as sustainable and responsible manners of resource extraction remains a topic for further research.

The other challenge is to obtain the data that links environmental and social harms with resource-related activities. These harms usually occur far away from producers, retailers and consumers. Moreover, it is difficult to track such linkages on a country-by-country basis because these are linked along supply chains. Concerted actions to overcome this challenge are necessary.

Actions to measure the state and performance of resource governance are also important, requiring budget and effort as well as collaboration with the resource extraction sector.