Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$99.00 per year
only $8.25 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Change history
24 November 2023
In the version of the article initially published, “IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report” incorrectly appeared as “IPCC Annual Report 5”, and the sentence “Accompanying this, I suggest that it is important that academics have complete disinterest in the sensibilities of funding bodies, other paymasters, and the media” was updated for clarity.
References
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Bergman, A. & Rinberg, A. in Carbon Dioxide Removal Primer (eds Wilcox, J. et al.) (2021).
Smith, S. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 2023).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim. Change 81, 119–159 (2007).
Reiner, D. M. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nat. Energy 1, 15011 (2016).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).
Geden, O. Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521, 27–28 (2015).
Babiker, M. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 1245–1354 (Cambridge University Press, 2022).
van Asselt, H. & Green, F. COP26 and the dynamics of anti-fossil fuel norms. WIREs Clim. Change 14, e816 (2023).
Dooley, K. & Kartha, S. Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 18, 79–98 (2018).
Sekera, J. et al. Carbon dioxide removal — what’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective. PLoS Clim. 2, e0000124 (2023).
Rogelj, J., Geden, O., Cowie, A. & Reisinger, A. Net-zero emissions targets are vague: three ways to fix. Nature 591, 365–368 (2021).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 391–397 (2018).
McLaren, D. Quantifying the potential scale of mitigation deterrence from greenhouse gas removal techniques. Clim. Change 162, 2411–2428 (2020).
Cozzi, L., Chen, O. & Kim, H. The world’s top 1% of emitters produce over 1000 times more CO2 than the bottom 1% — analysis. International Energy Agency (2023).
Geden, O. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 790–797 (2016).
Markusson, N., McLaren, D. & Tyfield, D. Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). Glob. Sustain. 1, e10 (2018).
Günther, P. & Ekardt, F. Human rights and large-scale carbon dioxide removal: potential limits to BECCS and DACCS deployment. Land 11, 2153 (2022).
Bows-Larkin, A. et al. Importance of non-CO2 emissions in carbon management. Carbon Manag. 5, 193–210 (2014).
Rickels, W., Proelß, A., Geden, O., Burhenne, J. & Fridahl, M. Integrating carbon dioxide removal into European emissions trading. Front. Clim. 3, 690023 (2021).
Acknowledgements
G.P.P. acknowledges support from the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement number 101056306 (IAM COMPACT). O.G. receives support from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant numbers 03F0898E and 01LS2101A). L.F. acknowledges funding from a number of foundations and individual donations that support The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL; see https://cielannualreport.org/supporters/). K.A. acknowledges the following colleagues for their long-term engagement on CDR issues: A. Larkin, D. Calverley and I. Stoddard.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Kevin Anderson is a professor of Energy and Climate Change. Previously he held the Zennström professorship (Uppsala, Sweden) and was director of the Tyndall Centre (Manchester, UK). Kevin engages with governments, industry and civil society, has a decade of experience in the petrochemical industry, is a chartered engineer and is a fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Holly Jean Buck is an Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability at the University at Buffalo, and her research focuses on public engagement with emerging climate technologies. She is the author of the books After Geoengineering and Ending Fossil Fuels: Why Net Zero Is Not Enough.
Lili Fuhr directs the Fossil Economy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law. She has followed the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Cycle as an expert reviewer for the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C and participated as an observer in the Synthesis Report approval plenary. Lili sits on the Steering Committee for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
Oliver Geden is senior fellow and head of the Research Cluster Climate Policy and Politics at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). He is co-editor of the annual State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report, acted as lead author for IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR) Working Group III and the Synthesis Report, and is currently vice-chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Glen P. Peters is a senior researcher at CICERO Center for International Climate Research who explores trends in global carbon dioxide emissions and how they link to future emission pathways and global climate objectives. He is on the executive team of the Global Carbon Budget and was a lead author for the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on emission scenarios.
Eve Tamme leads Climate Principles, a climate policy advisory. She has worked on climate policy since 2004 in public and private sectors, specializing in European and international policy developments. Her work focuses on carbon removal, carbon markets, carbon capture and climate governance.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Related links
Carbon Brief Guest Post: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-what-the-tiny-remaining-1-5c-carbon-budget-means-for-climate-policy/
IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C Warming: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Tyndall Production Phaseout Report: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/phaseout-pathways-for-fossil-fuel-production-within-paris-complia
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Anderson, K., Buck, H.J., Fuhr, L. et al. Controversies of carbon dioxide removal. Nat Rev Earth Environ 4, 808–814 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y
