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

Plenty of data about recycling exists, but it is patchy and fragmented. Each country has its own issues and policy interests related to waste management and tends to focus on subcategories of waste without looking at the entire situation (for example, glass and PET bottles instead of total packaging waste and total waste generated). Thus, the scope of recycling of municipal waste, packaging waste, e-waste, etc., differs by country. Some countries have not yet even started recycling certain types of waste. There is also some disagreement on what to count as recycling. The inclusion or exclusion of a subtype of waste or a type of recycling method can greatly impact recycling data from a country. In addition, some countries monitor the collection rate of waste products to recycling facilities, while others monitor the amount of recycled materials divided by the amount of collected waste products to recycling facilities. Neither of these indicates the overall recycling situation of the waste product properly. Thus, comparison of the situation and performance of recycling between countries is difficult, and reasonable, comparable data is lacking.