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...

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.

Based on the remaining carbon budget for 1.5C & the likelihood of completely overshooting it before/early 2030s, dont you think we are already on a high CDR pathway together with ambitious emission cuts if we are to still attain 1.5C? Shouldnt we start ramping up investments for CDR as well then?

plus high removals to highlight that high CDR is not necessarily the enemy if the policy is designed right

There is no instance in the commentary where we mention CDR to be a replacement for emission reduction. We call for separate targets where both are actually pursued aggressively without one undermining the other. If you look at country C in the conceptual figure, it is both high emission reduction

Kindly see country C in our conceptual figure. We are pushing for both high emission reduction and aggressive CDR deployment.Oil producing countries are mandated to cut emissions significantly and still invest heavily in CDR. No one is allowed to simply follow broad net zero targets

Kindly see country C in our conceptual figure. We are pushing for both high emission reduction and aggressive CDR deployment. We are not saying we should scale CDR to compensate for fossil fuel use. We are saying high CDR pathway is actually a good thing if paired against rapid emission cuts

of actually pursuing a specific climate target like 1.5C

safe levels simply because we had only focused on decarbonization efforts (and failed to cut emissions significantly) and underinvested in CDR because of mitigation deterrence concerns. Point 12 means we are at that point trying to remove CO2 as much as possible to make the planet “liveable” instead

We actually advocate for both - ambitious emission cuts and aggressive CDR deployment.
Point 12 of the thread was only to emphasize that pursuing both simultaneously could ensure course correction if progress stalls in either domain instead of having to deal with too much CO2 beyond

Yessss!

damages, avoid dangerous CO₂ concentrations, and keep open whatever degrees of climate safety remain. If we fail in both, atmospheric CO₂ could rise to levels that threaten not only the Paris goals but also long-term climate stability and human survival.

You are right that CDR cannot fully compensate for failed emission cuts. But this is why we need governments to act urgently on both decarbonization and CDR. Even if CDR never scales enough to fully offset emission cut failures, we still need to scale it high enough to limit long-term climate

Sure Prof, I just added the link to the full-text access. Thank you!

Also find the full-text access to a view-only version of our commentary by using the following SharedIt link:

rdcu.be/eqQFw

16. Huge thanks to all co-authors (those on this APP) for their inputs, guidance, and support
@felixschenuit.bsky.social @davidho.bsky.social @hmcjeon.bsky.social