Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs

There are major concerns about the sustainability of large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. It is therefore an urgent question to what extent CDR will be needed to implement the long term ambition of the Paris Agreement. Here we show that ambitious near term mitigation significantly decreases CDR requirements to keep the Paris climate targets within reach. Following the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) until 2030 makes 2 °C unachievable without CDR. Reducing 2030 emissions by 20% below NDC levels alleviates the trade-off between high transitional challenges and high CDR deployment. Nevertheless, transitional challenges increase significantly if CDR is constrained to less than 5 Gt CO2 a−1 in any year. At least 8 Gt CO2 a−1 CDR are necessary in the long term to achieve 1.5 °C and more than 15 Gt CO2 a−1 to keep transitional challenges in bounds.

[1]  P. Ciais,et al.  How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[2]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[3]  Pete Smith,et al.  Research priorities for negative emissions , 2016 .

[4]  J. Rogelj,et al.  Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C , 2016, Nature.

[5]  Phil Williamson,et al.  Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods , 2016, Nature.

[6]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions , 2016 .

[7]  James R. McFarland,et al.  Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? , 2015, Science.

[8]  Jessica Strefler,et al.  Description of the REMIND Model (Version 1.6) , 2015 .

[9]  G. Luderer,et al.  Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C , 2015 .

[10]  Kenichi Wada,et al.  Technological Forecasting & Social Change Locked into Copenhagen pledges — Implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals , 2014 .

[11]  M. Ha-Duong,et al.  Climate change 2014 - Mitigation of climate change , 2015 .

[12]  O. Edenhofer.  Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change : Working Group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2015 .

[13]  Benjamin Leon Bodirsky,et al.  Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies , 2014, Environmental Research Letters.

[14]  John P. Weyant,et al.  The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies , 2014, Climatic Change.

[15]  L. Clarke,et al.  Assessing Transformation Pathways , 2014 .

[16]  Jessica Strefler,et al.  The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE , 2014, Climatic Change.

[17]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets , 2013 .

[18]  N. Bauer,et al.  The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation—first-best vs. second-best worlds , 2012, Climatic Change.

[19]  David William Keith,et al.  Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air , 2006 .

[20]  K. Riahi,et al.  Managing Climate Risk , 2001, Science.

[21]  David W. Keith,et al.  Climate Strategy with Co2 Capture from the Air , 2001 .