Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed

Nature Energy volume 2, pages 902–904 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Although nearly all 2 °C scenarios use negative CO2 emission technologies, only relatively small investments are being made in them, and concerns are being raised regarding their large-scale use. If no explicit policy decisions are taken soon, however, their use will simply be forced on us to meet the Paris climate targets.

The 2015 Paris Agreement represents a landmark in international climate policy and carries key implications for energy policies around the world. Several studies have shown that drastic changes in energy systems are needed to achieve the Paris climate objectives of limiting the increase of global mean temperature to well below 2 °C, or possibly even below 1.5 °C (refs 1,2,3). The current literature, which focuses mostly on the 2 °C target, discusses how these transitions depend on differences in assumptions regarding inertia4, participation of regions1,5, and the availability and potential of relevant technologies6,7. Based on an assessment of a database of published scenarios developed by integrated assessment models (IAMs), the Working Group III (WGIII) contribution to the recent IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) concluded that scenarios that are likely to maintain warming below 2 °C “are characterized by 40 to 70% global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2010, and emissions levels near zero or below in 2100”8. These ranges have been quoted frequently in the sphere of international policymaking9, but the assumptions supporting the figures are quoted much less frequently. A crucial assumption in this regard relates to the availability of options that can lead to net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. In fact, of the approximately 110 scenarios in the AR5 WGIII database that are relevant for achieving the 2 °C target, practically all achieve net negative CO2 emissions in the second half of the century through extensive application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)3,10. BECCS and other negative emission technologies (NETs) such as forestry policies and direct air capture are very competitive in cost-optimization models, leading to their large-scale deployment. There are two reasons for this. First, they can balance out excess GHG emissions in the first half of the century, thereby preventing the more drastic and costly emission reductions in the short term that would be needed without NETs (and which entail a considerable risk of ending up with stranded assets)3,11,12,13. The preference for reducing emissions later in the century is strengthened by the fact that models usually apply a discount rate, typically around 5%. Second, NETs can offset emissions that are hard to reduce in other sectors, such as in transport and agriculture. Overall indicators on deep mitigation scenarios, such as the 2050 reduction rate mentioned above, are therefore dominated by scenarios that include the implementation of NETs.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Greenhouse gas emissions and energy system implications under baseline and 2 °C scenarios with and without net negative CO2 emissions.

References

  1. 1.

    Tavoni, M. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 119–126 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds. Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  4. 4.

    Bertram, C. et al. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 62–72 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kriegler, E. et al. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 24–44 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kriegler, E. et al. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Riahi, K. et al. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 8–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core WritingTeam, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2015).

  9. 9.

    Leaders Declaration G7 Summit 7–8 June 2015 (G7 Germany, 2015).

  10. 10.

    Anderson, K. & Peters, G. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kriegler, E., Edenhofer, O., Reuster, L., Luderer, G. & Klein, D. Climatic Change 118, 45–57 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Climatic Change 118, 15–27 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Azar, C. et al. Climatic Change 100, 195–202 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Gernaat, D. E. H. J. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 33, 142–153 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    van Soest, H. L. et al. Climatic Change 142, 491–504 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Anderson, K. Nat. Geosci. 8, 898–900 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Geden, O. Nature 521, 27–28 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Sanchez, D. L. & Kammen, D. M. Nat. Energy 1, 15002 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Eom, J. et al. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 73–88 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Clack, C. T. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6722–6727 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fuss, S. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 115007 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Vaughan, N. E. & Gough, C. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095003 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Smith, P. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Williamson, P. Nature 530, 7589 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Creutzig, F. et al. GCB Bioenergy 7, 916–944 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Peters, G. P. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 118–122 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pires, J. C. M., Martins, F. G., Alvim-Ferraz, M. C. M. & Simões, M. Chem. Eng. Res. Design 89, 1446–1460 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Boot-Handford, M. E. et al. Energy Environ. Sci. 7, 130–189 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Koornneef, J. et al. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Contr. 11, 117–132 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Bornmann, L. & Fuss, S. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 035007 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Brunsting, S., De Best-Waldhober, M., Feenstra, C. F. J. & Mikunda, T. Energy Proc. 4, 6376–6383 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fridahl, M. Energy Policy 104, 89–99 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lockwood, T. Public Outreach Approaches for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects (International Energy Agency, Clean Coal Centre, Paris, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    CSL Forum Project Summaries (2017); http://go.nature.com/2AEk9U1

  35. 35.

    Global CCS Institute The Global Status of CCS (2016); http://go.nature.com/2AEkqX3

  36. 36.

    Klein, D. et al. Climatic Change 123, 705–718 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    van Vuuren, D. P. & Riahi, K. Climatic Change 104, 793–801 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Peters, G. P. & Geden, O. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 619–621 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Moniz, E. J. & Falih, K. A. A. Open Letter to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on CCS (2016).

  40. 40.

    CSL Forum Moving Beyond the First Wave of CCS Demonstrations (2015); http://go.nature.com/2AFfEbx

  41. 41.

    Krey, V. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds. Edenhofer, O. et al.) Annex II (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Detlef P. van Vuuren, Andries F. Hof & Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld

  2. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Detlef P. van Vuuren, Andries F. Hof & Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld

  3. International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

    Keywan Riahi

Authors
  1. Detlef P. van Vuuren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andries F. Hof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mariësse A. E. van Sluisveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keywan Riahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Detlef P. van Vuuren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Vuuren, D.P., Hof, A.F., van Sluisveld, M.A. et al. Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nat Energy 2, 902–904 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0055-2

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing