• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska March 14, 2023
U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse March 14, 2023
$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’ March 14, 2023
UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’ March 9, 2023
Biden Cuts Fossil Subsidies, But Oil and Gas Still Lines Up for Billions March 9, 2023
Next
Prev

1.5°C Is Doable Without Controversial Carbon Capture Technique, New Study Concludes

April 19, 2018
Reading time: 3 minutes

Durban, South Africa climate summit, 2011

Durban, South Africa climate summit, 2011

 

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change is breaking new ground in the debate about how to limit average global warming to 1.5°C, suggesting for the first time that the target may be achievable with little or no reliance on a controversial and unproven “negative emission” technique, Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS).

“I do believe getting rid of negative emissions totally is not possible—but minimizing them might be attractive,” said lead author Prof. Detlef von Vuuren, senior researcher with the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. “Negative emissions are not necessarily bad, but it means that one does accept certain risks.”

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
Subscribe

The new scenario assumes “ambitious but not unrealistic” deployment of renewable electricity, high levels of energy and materials efficiency, agricultural intensification, and reduction of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide “using the best-available technologies and further technological progress,” Carbon Brief reports.

It shows improved access to education accelerating a trend toward reduced fertility, so that today’s world population of 7.0 billion peaks at 8.4 billion in 2050, before falling to 6.9 billion in 2100. The majority of the world’s population adopts “sustainable lifestyles”, with less air travel and private automobile use, more walking and cycling, and pretty much everyone adopting healthier diets with less meat consumption.

The paper departs from most 1.5°C scenarios by emphasizing options that “have tended to be excluded from the conversation, because they are hard for scientists to model,” Carbon Brief notes.

The 1.5°C pathways developed until now “have relied on negative emissions from BECCS to suck excess CO2 out of the atmosphere later this century,” writes Deputy Editor Simon Evans. “In part, this reflects the assumption that inertia in the global energy system makes it hard to peak and then eliminate CO2.”

The integrated assessment models (IAMs) at the heart of most low-carbon pathways “select technologies on the basis of relative costs,” the new report states, so that “they normally concentrate on reduction measures for which reasonable estimates of future performance and costs can be made. This implies that some possible response strategies receive less attention, as their future performance is more speculative or their introduction would be based on drivers other than cost, such as lifestyle change or more rapid electrification.”

As well, “existing studies hardly look into more aggressive implementation of options, such as rapid implementation of the best available technologies or deep reduction of non-CO2 [greenhouse gases]. Technology development could also be more rapid than typically assumed in IAM model runs.”

Those factors help explain “why BECCS has become so dominant in the 1.5°C scenarios, even though its widespread deployment faces daunting sociopolitical barriers,” Evans explains. “In contrast, alternative solutions have often been ignored because it is hard to estimate their performance or cost.”

In the new study, “combining all of the mitigation options together effectively eliminates the need for BECCS to stay within a 1.5°C limit,” Carbon Brief notes. “This frees up significant areas of agricultural land in the model, some of which is reforested, resulting in ‘natural’ CO2 removal.”

Carbon Brief describes van Vuuren as “a key figure in the early use of BECCS within climate models” who now considers it “unfortunate” the technology has to come to dominate scenario work on 1.5°C. The more common approach has raised apprehension across the climate community that is likely to reach a crescendo later this year, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due to release a special report on 1.5°C pathways ahead of the UN climate conference this December in Katowice, Poland.

“There are major concerns about the sustainability of large-scale deployment of CO2 removal (CDR) technologies, especially in relation to BECCS, but also for large-scale afforestation,” said Dr. Alexander Popp, head of the land-use management group at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

While the new study points to a different path, research scholar Dr. Joeri Rogeli at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis said the fundamental issue for policy-makers is unchanged.

“The core of the mitigation challenge remains the same: global CO2 emissions need to be reduced to zero,” he told Carbon Brief. “What policy-makers should take from this entire body of research on 1.5°C scenarios is that there is a variety of avenues one can pursue to limit CO2 emissions, and that these different avenues or strategies allow to limit the contribution of potentially undesirable technologies like BECCS.”



in Bioenergy, CCS & Negative Emissions, COP Conferences, Ending Emissions, Food Security & Agriculture, Forests & Deforestation, International Agencies & Studies, Soil & Natural Sequestration

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr
Oil & Gas

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
43
EcoAnalytics
Media, Messaging, & Public Opinion

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
57
Behrat/Wikimedia Commons
Clean Electricity Grid

Hawaii Firm Turns Home Water Heaters into Grid Batteries

March 14, 2023
221

Comments 1

  1. Veronica-Mae Soar says:
    5 years ago

    agricultural intensification ? how on earth do they suggest this is going to reduce carbon ? it is agricultural intensification that has contributed to the release of tons of carbon and destroyed the soil which should be a carbon sink.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Behrat/Wikimedia Commons

Hawaii Firm Turns Home Water Heaters into Grid Batteries

March 14, 2023
221
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board/flickr

$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’

March 14, 2023
83
David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
72
Rebecca Bollwitt/flickr

Fossils Stay ‘Oily’, Gibsons Sues Big Oil, U.S. Clean Energy Booms, EU Pushes Fossil Phaseout, and Fukushima Disaster was ‘No Accident’

March 14, 2023
60
EcoAnalytics

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
57
U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
43

Recent Posts

Raysonho/wikimedia commons

Purolator Pledges $1B to Electrify Last-Mile Delivery

March 14, 2023
40
United Nations

UN Buys Tanker, But Funding Gap Could Scuttle Plan to Salvage Oil from ‘Floating Time Bomb’

March 10, 2023
87
Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

Biden Cuts Fossil Subsidies, But Oil and Gas Still Lines Up for Billions

March 10, 2023
162
jasonwoodhead23/flickr

First Nation Scorches Imperial Oil, Alberta Regulator Over Toxic Leak

March 8, 2023
360
MarcusObal/wikimedia commons

No Climate Risk Targets for Banks, New Guides for Green Finance as 2 Federal Agencies Issue New Rules

March 8, 2023
231
FMSC/Flickr

Millions Face Food Insecurity as Horn of Africa Braces for Worst Drought Ever

March 8, 2023
240
Next Post

Company averts climate chocolate threat

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}