10 take-homes for carbon removal from the IPCC report

The IPCC’s report on mitigation makes sobering reading and delivers (yet another) wake up call to humanity.  For the first time, the IPCC acknowledges a critical role of carbon removal (CR*) in the near-term to meet the goal of keeping temperatures below 2°C.  And to keep temperatures below the lower critical target of 1.5C we are going to need a lot of it.  Here are our 10 key takeaways for those without the time to read all 3,000 pages:

* The IPCC uses the term CDR (carbon dioxide removal) throughout their report  They acknowledge the theoretical potential to remove other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases) but that these lack any currently meaningful solutions.  We choose to use the term carbon removal (CR) to include all greenhouse gases and our intent to support removals of any greenhouse gas represented by CO₂e, not just carbon dioxide

1. CDR is not optional. 

The report states that CDR is a "necessary element of mitigation strategies that meet net zero CO₂... and limit warming to 2°C or lower". Meeting the 1.5°C target with limited overshoot (or minimal CDR) is a near impossible task, [the authors conclude] it would require a reduction of GHG emissions by at least 30 Gt/year in just 8 years. That is about 85% of our current global fossil fuel emissions. Therefore, deployment of CDR alongside dramatic emissions reduction is necessary to limit the worst effects of warming. 

The IPCC outlines three crucial roles of CDR in meeting net zero: 

• near-term: accelerating mitigation efforts

• mid-term: counterbalancing hard-to-abate or left-over emissions 

• long-term: achieving net-negative emissions.

2. Definitions of carbon dioxide removal

The IPCC defines CDR as "anthropogenic activities that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it durably in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products." CCS and CCU applied to CO₂ from fossil emissions are not CDR, rather removal must come via CO₂ from ambient air or trapped in biomass. 

Secondly, it makes a distinction between negative emissions and CDR. They refer to net negative emissions at a whole systems level, whereas CDR could be occurring even if emissions are still overall positive. For example, reforestation efforts are CDR even if rates of deforestation are causing net positive emissions. Negative emissions from forestry would only be achieved when the removals from new or existing forests outweigh the emissions from deforestation or land use change. 

3. Massive quantities of carbon removal are needed to meet targets

The report does contain some numbers on the volume of CDR which might be required. It cites an annual removal of 1 GtCO₂ by 2030 and 6 Gt by 2050 to limit warming below 2°C, according to the models. These are median and, as we expected, subject to wide ranges (0.8-18 GtCO₂ at 2050).

Our estimate is that currently we are removing 40-50 ktCO₂/yr, which is less than 0.01% of the 2030 target…

4. A balanced portfolio of CDR methods is strongly recommended 

The IPPC are clear that CDR is not just about afforestation/reforestation, BECCS and DAC. Although these pathways are used in climate models, the IPCC strongly advocates for a whole suite of CDR, leaving room for flexibility as governments lay out their net zero strategies. The report also calls for integration of additional CDR methods, including soil carbon and biochar in future models. The diverse CDR ecosystem outlined is demonstrated below.

Expanded categorisations include: 

• Peatland and coastal wetland restoration as a CDR method, 

• Buildings as a storage medium 

• Agroforestry as an implementation method.

They also note that the frequently-cited “nature vs tech” categorisation is not a valuable distinction. They instead categorise based on the removal process: land-based biological; ocean-based biological; geochemical; chemical.

The report reviews the potential, costs, risks, and co-benefits for the best-documented pathways, relying on the commonly cited Fuss et al. 2018 paper for the majority of these, and provide a summary table comparing the potential of each CDR pathway - which you can see *here*¹. This isn’t new information but it’s useful to see it highlighted.  

Carbon removal ecosystem according to the latest IPCC AR6 WGIII, adapted from Figure 2 in (Minx et al. 2018)

5. Not all CDR methods are equal

One tonne of CO₂ sequestered in soils is not necessarily the same as one tonne of CO₂ trapped in silicate rocks below ground. The report warns of the reversal risks of nature-based solutions, including soil or vegetation management, by human or natural disturbance. Whereas CO₂ stored in geological or ocean reservoirs are “less prone to reversal”.

6. Noteworthy newcomers 

Nascent CDR methods reported include terrestrial biomass dumping, marine biomass CDR (ie. seaweed farming/sinking) and ocean CO₂ extraction. The report nods to the rapidly evolving innovation across the industry whilst emphasising the R&D needed to mitigate risks.

7. BECCS but no BiCRS

There is still no reference to BiCRS, the overarching term encompassing BECCS but also other approaches for biomass with carbon removal, including burial and bio-oil sequestration. Read our opinion on why we think BiCRS is a better umbrella term here.

8. Transforming agriculture holds significant carbon removal potential in the next decade. 

3.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ can be removed by agriculture in 2030, using strategies from soil carbon sequestration to agroforestry and biochar application. The report flags that net additions per hectare are likely to be very small and tricky to monitor. We believe that soil MRV initiatives — such as our investee Agricarbon — will be vital in providing accurate recordings of soil carbon accrual.

9. Removal of non-CO₂ gases

The report cites that since there are no current removal methods for non CO₂ gases, ‘net zero GHG’ implies that gross CO₂ removals will need to counterbalance the emissions of both CO₂ and non-CO₂ gases.  We have seen some innovations developing in methane removal, but it is true these are not commercial yet. At Counteract we are keeping a close eye on this space to support relevant innovations as they come to market.

10. CDR will not scale without investment and supporting policy. 

IPPC Author Joanna House, from University of Bristol, explains to the Financial Times that we need a whole range of CDR solutions because there is “only so much land, and you can’t expect the land to mop up all the greenhouse gas emissions,” and that CDR requires investment “now, because they are behind the curve of what we need”.

This messaging is coming hot on the heels of the announcement of Climeworks $650m raise to scale their 4 ktCO₂ plant in the coming years, the largest CDR funding round to date! Watch this space…

In summary: Carbon removal is now placed firmly on the global map and it is here to stay. We’re going to need a portfolio of solutions, using different methods (leveraging photosynthesis, chemistry and geochemistry) and lasting from decades to millennia. Finally, to meet the scale we need requires investment NOW. Reach out if you’d like to chat!

Footnotes

¹ Table taken from IPCC AR6 WG3, Table 12.6, Chapter 12 pg. 61