Slow reductions=LESS CDR
I often see the argument that the more emissions remain the more CDR is needed. Example below
But it's the opposite! If a lot of emissions remain it means there wasn't enough political will & capital to address them. That will & capital won't magically appear for CDR instead

Comparing different alternatives is tricky since they rest on so many assumptions. Electrofuels versus using CDR to offset fossil fuel oil depends on the cost of electricity, fossil fuels and CDR. The ISO chart below compares the interaction between them.

Of course this first requires that we accept permanent CDR as a solution for a limited amount of emissions.

NEW ANALYSIS: What role will CDR play for shipping?

Biofuels, onboard CCS, and durable CDR are likely to be cheapest for the majority of emissions. But many roadmaps center around electrofuels, despite them looking like the most expensive alternative, as with aviation.

This graph compares economic & energetic needs of aviation and cement mitigation, showing cement is not hard to abate, but aviation is.
However, I prefer "CDR-optimal" instead of hard to abate here. 3/5

All emission reductions more expensive than DACCS are hard to abate.
That's the proposed definition in this new paper. I agree, and have been arguing for a long time that there is NO need to create a special list of residual emissions... 1/5

How many tonnes would the world's biggest CDR buyer be purchasing if they were following the SBTi proposed CDR scale-up requirement?

Full article: www.cdr.fyi/blog/zero-vs...

News shocking paper from James Hansen et al
“As a result, shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is likely within the next 20-30 years, unless actions are taken to reduce global warming – in contradiction to conclusions of IPCC."

I am BEYOND THRILLED to announce that
Salesforce has committed $5 million to pre-purchase durable carbon removal credits through Milkywire. This collaboration is part of Salesforce's ambitious $100 million CDR First Movers Coalition pledge.
www.milkywire.com/articles/mil...

I've started a research overview of the risk of an AMOC collapse, its potential consequences and what we know about solutions. Would you like to contribute? Comment, and I can give you access.
noisy-city-cf3.notion.site/AMOC-Researc...

Planting trees in snow-covered regions is not a great climate solution. We already knew trees reflect less sunlight than snow, contributing to warming (although the effect is complex since forests increase clouds). This new study points to large carbon loss from frozen soils when planting trees

Can you visualize a Gt of CO₂?
RMI put together a great explainer. See the image for scale.

Some highlights:
1 Gt CDR per year would require CAPEX spending of $32B-$1.1T. Huge range, mostly due to rock-based solutions being capex low (but higher opex).
Link: rmi.org/what-we-real... 1/4

💣 Warming won't stop at net zero if we cheat and count natural CO₂ uptake as target fulfilment, or if we neutralize fossil emissions with shortlived CO₂ storage. A Very important paper in Nature by Myles Allen et al was just released together with a briefing note.

Game:🎾 2016. Öko-Institut, "85% of CDM credits are non-additional".
Set:🏓 2021. The Guardian, "90% of rainforest carbon are worthless"
Match:🏆 2024. Net Zero lab, 84% of 1 billion reduction credits don't represent real reductions.

Latest emissions from Global carbon project updates. This is what it looks like when countries' targets are added.
Even this rapid phasedown leads to a 576 Gt overshoot of 1.5C.

Full dataset from our additional carbon accountability paper available here: zenodo.org/records/1378...

🚨 HOT OFF THE PRESS: I'm co-author of a new paper quantifying countries' "additional carbon accountability". It shows only 18 countries (incl EU) need to exceed their climate targets to bring temperatures (back) to 1.5°C.
1/10