Zeke Hausfather's tweet thread today. Please follow him on Twitter.
Carbon dioxide removal is an important part of getting to net-zero and stopping the world from warming. But it cannot be used as an alternative to deep emissions reductions.
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 14, 2022
Graphs like this from @1PointFiveCCUS are deeply problematic and oversell the role of CDR. pic.twitter.com/Rut7QsgCOs
In the recent IPCC report the median 1.5C scenario had around 6 billion tons (GtCO2) of carbon removal from a combination of trees, soils, and permanent removals in 2050. There is no world where we have 10 GtCO2 in the next eight years just from permanent removals!
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 14, 2022
It is critical that proponents of carbon removal not oversell its potential, and anything with < 90% removals and > 10% CDR is a bit worrying.
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 14, 2022
CDR is not a replacement for deep emissions reductions, and anyone who says differently is selling something.
Correction: < 90% reductions and >10% removals. Oh for want of a twitter edit button 😉
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 14, 2022
It is critical that proponents of carbon removal not oversell its potential, and anything with < 90% removals and > 10% CDR is a bit worrying.
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) June 14, 2022
CDR is not a replacement for deep emissions reductions, and anyone who says differently is selling something.
Every single carbon removal article has a line like "science says this will be needed for hard to abate emissions" and then a 2 second pause, and then "it's being bought by easy-to-abate sectors" with no attempt to connect these things archive.ph/VaaOm
— Ketan Joshi (@ketanjoshi.co) May 9, 2024 at 4:03 PM
[image or embed]
No comments:
Post a Comment