Yes they do. See a typical example below for GCAM.

You can find more details in Table 1 of this paper

iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...

Also find below a manga-edition of the key message of this commentary 😀😀

14. Even if moral hazard is avoided, a common concern that opponents of high CDR may still raise is the resource demands of CDR deployment on land, energy, water, and food. This challenge could be mitigated through portfolio diversification across CDR pathways. (14/16)

13. We propose several concrete strategies to ensure the effective co-pursuit of emission cuts and removals. (13/16)

10. The results are shown in this table, BUT journal policy prevents the inclusion of new quantitative analysis in commentary pieces. HENCE, THIS TABLE, WHILE IT WAS PEER-REVIEWED, HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FINAL PUBLICATION. (10/16)

8a. The idea of setting parallel targets for emission reductions and removals is NOT NEW. (8a/16)

7. In this commentary, we make it clear that depending on policy design, CDR can either perpetuate fossil fuel consumption and slow emissions reductions or, if paired with rapid emissions reductions, accelerate net-zero and net negative emissions attainment. (7/16)

4. Quantitatively, emerging studies, including some of ours based on least-cost models that potentially shape real-world policies, reinforce this message: “high CDR slows fossil fuel phase-down and locks in residual emissions.” (4/16)

3. The danger is that the expectation of future cheap CO₂ removal MAY delay expensive near-term emission cuts. This concern is often framed as moral hazard or mitigation deterrence. (3/16)

2. Achieving net zero and net negative in the second half of this century requires active removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. (2/16)

Source: IPCC AR6

1. The science is clear. On the path to 1.5°C by 2100, temperatures continue rising until net zero (or zero emissions) is reached. Warming only starts to decline after net zero, when we move into net negative emissions. (1/16)

x.com/hausfath/sta...