There is a big difference between the CDR needed to reach net zero, for neutralizing methane, and removals to bring back down temperatures after overshoot.
Your arguments are reasonable, based on climate model and the agreed-upon 1.5 °C limit. However, what we see outside our windows is distressing and discordant with model projections. We see an acceleration of renewables, adoption of EVs and geothermal pumps, yes, but also increased oil & gas production, coal burning and steadily increasing CO2 emissions. We also see disruptive climate events, with increasing impacts on our lives and economies.
There is mounting pressure arising from climate disruption, but emission reductions remain voluntary. An unyielding resistance to fully commit to effective reductions remains, especially from China, India and petrostates like Canada. At some point, the dam will burst because the pain from inaction is intolerable. At that time, major players will agree to make emission reductions mandatory.
I suspect that most sectors with significant emissions will be unprepared when that time comes. Some, like transportation, may already be transitioning, but others will not. *Carbon removal will be necessary to offset the emissions from those who were unprepared for this transition.* Separately, there will be hard-to-abate emissions that need to be offset: that's the 5-13% of total current emissions that you mention.
Lastly, there will be a need for carbon removal to address our overshoot. No one knows how much carbon this represents. I'm guessing that we'll need to return to 370-375 ppm. That final clean up will be an expense incurred by governments, much like sewage treatment.
Nature-based CDR from restoring degraded land, restoring desertified land, biomimicry in agriculture (agroforestry, silvopasture, permaculture, etc.), and preserving existing forest and ecosystem — all intuitively and quantitatively seem more promising to me, generally, for a number of reasons, than technological CDR solutions like Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). But I would need to review latest news and publications, including Carbon Direct. Unless you can recommend some?
If a farmer, or a group of farmers, wanted to pursue a strategy that matched biological removal timescales with enteric emissions timescales, how would they practically achieve that? Most measurement and recognition scheme seem to track far closer to GWP100 than GWP* in terms of the timescale that are embedded in the measurement/recognition/verification methods. Are there any FLAG-style inset approaches that recognize and are tailored for shorter-lived GHGs specifically from agriculture/livestock?
Your arguments are reasonable, based on climate model and the agreed-upon 1.5 °C limit. However, what we see outside our windows is distressing and discordant with model projections. We see an acceleration of renewables, adoption of EVs and geothermal pumps, yes, but also increased oil & gas production, coal burning and steadily increasing CO2 emissions. We also see disruptive climate events, with increasing impacts on our lives and economies.
There is mounting pressure arising from climate disruption, but emission reductions remain voluntary. An unyielding resistance to fully commit to effective reductions remains, especially from China, India and petrostates like Canada. At some point, the dam will burst because the pain from inaction is intolerable. At that time, major players will agree to make emission reductions mandatory.
I suspect that most sectors with significant emissions will be unprepared when that time comes. Some, like transportation, may already be transitioning, but others will not. *Carbon removal will be necessary to offset the emissions from those who were unprepared for this transition.* Separately, there will be hard-to-abate emissions that need to be offset: that's the 5-13% of total current emissions that you mention.
Lastly, there will be a need for carbon removal to address our overshoot. No one knows how much carbon this represents. I'm guessing that we'll need to return to 370-375 ppm. That final clean up will be an expense incurred by governments, much like sewage treatment.
Thanks for the super helpful analysis
Nature-based CDR from restoring degraded land, restoring desertified land, biomimicry in agriculture (agroforestry, silvopasture, permaculture, etc.), and preserving existing forest and ecosystem — all intuitively and quantitatively seem more promising to me, generally, for a number of reasons, than technological CDR solutions like Direct Air Capture (DAC) or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). But I would need to review latest news and publications, including Carbon Direct. Unless you can recommend some?
If a farmer, or a group of farmers, wanted to pursue a strategy that matched biological removal timescales with enteric emissions timescales, how would they practically achieve that? Most measurement and recognition scheme seem to track far closer to GWP100 than GWP* in terms of the timescale that are embedded in the measurement/recognition/verification methods. Are there any FLAG-style inset approaches that recognize and are tailored for shorter-lived GHGs specifically from agriculture/livestock?