This is interesting work. By separating CDR and emissions reduction goals, it addresses one of the key problems with how most people think of CDR.

Jeffrey Ampah@jeffreyampah.bsky.social · last mo.

🚨New in Environmental Science & Technology: Ambitious Co-scaling of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Decarbonization Delivers Better Climate Outcomes Than Strategies That Prioritize Efforts in One Domain Key takeaways below👇🏻

🚨New in Environmental Science & Technology: Ambitious Co-scaling of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Decarbonization Delivers Better Climate Outcomes Than Strategies That Prioritize Efforts in One Domain Key takeaways below👇🏻

The deterrence worry is real. But delaying CDR development is its own risk, as your thread notes. Co-scaling both, with CDR reserved for residual emissions rather than a delay excuse, keeps course-correction open. Glad to see it tested.

🚨New in Environmental Science & Technology: Ambitious Co-scaling of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Decarbonization Delivers Better Climate Outcomes Than Strategies That Prioritize Efforts in One Domain Key takeaways below👇🏻

OUT NOW: we revisit the pivotal moment when science, institutions and politics aligned to deliver the UK’s #NetZero target. At a time of political divergence, the evidence for #ClimateAction remains clear. Evidence-based #ClimatePolicy is more relevant than ever. @granthamicl.bsky.social

Net Zero: The inside story of the UK’s climate target

YouTube video by Grantham Imperial

youtube.com

What becomes of the 1.5°C goal now that global warming is approaching that level?🌍🔥🌡️ In a new @science.org Policy Forum we explain how the 1.5°C goal remains a critical legal & ethical benchmark, even as the world nears and may soon exceed 1.5°C of global warming🧵1/ www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

The pursuit of 1.5°C endures as a legal and ethical imperative in a changing world

As the world nears 1.5°C of global warming, near-term emissions reductions and adequate adaptation become ever more important to ensure a safe and livable planet for present and future generations

science.org

⚠️Global warming caused by humans is advancing at 0.27°C per decade – the highest rate since records began. This is one of the indicators updated every year by over 60 international scientists in the annual Indicators of Global Climate Change report – published today. doi.org/10.5194/essd... /1

I categorically disagree with claims that CO₂ removal (CDR) is a scam. The field is full of smart people dedicated to figuring out what, if anything, works, because we’ll need CDR in the future for legacy and residual emissions. Funding via market mechanisms isn’t ideal, but doesn’t make it a scam.

I’ll says this once: We’re spending a lot more on mitigation (e.g., renewables) than on CDR research. A lot more. It could simultaneously be true that CDR research acts as mitigation deterrence and we need to do CDR research. Trees will not be enough to reduce atmospheric CO₂.

How can we scale CO₂ removal (CDR) and ensure we don't delay CO₂ emission reduction? @jeffreyampah.bsky.social has you covered in our new publication. Please read his thread, read our paper, and follow Jeff!

Scaling carbon removal without delaying emission reductions

Nature Reviews Clean Technology - Depending on policy design, carbon dioxide removal could either perpetuate fossil fuel consumption and slow emission reductions or, if paired with rapid emission...

rdcu.be

Jeffrey Ampah@jeffreyampah.bsky.social · last yr.

🚨New in Nature Reviews Clean Technologies: Scaling carbon removal without delaying emission reductions In this commentary, we maintain that smart policy design allows both to move together, avoiding the usual "mitigation deterrence" trap Full thread unpacking our argument below 👇

Good story: CDR is not necessarily the enemy of emission reduction 👇

Jeffrey Ampah@jeffreyampah.bsky.social · last yr.

🚨New in Nature Reviews Clean Technologies: Scaling carbon removal without delaying emission reductions In this commentary, we maintain that smart policy design allows both to move together, avoiding the usual "mitigation deterrence" trap Full thread unpacking our argument below 👇

🚨New in Nature Reviews Clean Technologies: Scaling carbon removal without delaying emission reductions In this commentary, we maintain that smart policy design allows both to move together, avoiding the usual "mitigation deterrence" trap Full thread unpacking our argument below 👇

Almost a year late in posting this here ICYMI📍📌: Our @NatureComms study on CDR reliance is finally out!!!. Deployment expectations of multi-gigatonne scale carbon removal could have adverse impacts on Asia’s energy-water-land nexus | Nature Communications Find out more doi.org/10.1038/s414...

Deployment expectations of multi-gigatonne scale carbon removal could have adverse impacts on Asia’s energy-water-land nexus - Nature Communications

Global future carbon removal efforts could largely be concentrated in Asia. Here, this study shows that multi-gigatonnes expectation of carbon removal could have adverse impact on the energy-land-wate...

doi.org

📌NEW PAPER📌 Happy to share our new paper, where we quantify the negative impacts and co-benefits associated with excessive reliance on CDR. We surely need CDR but only in a complementary role while decarbonization takes the driving seat towards 1.5C

David Ho@davidho.bsky.social · 3y ago

We need CO₂ removal (CDR) to reach net zero, but it's incorrect to say we must ramp up both decarbonization and CDR today. Minimizing CDR deployment will decrease fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution. Find out more from @jeffreyampah.bsky.social and colleagues.