http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150803/ncomms8958/pdf/ncomms8958.pdf
Abstract: To limit global warming to o2 °C we must reduce the net amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere, either by producing less CO2 (conventional mitigation) or by capturing more CO2 (negative emissions). Here, using state-of-the-art carbon–climate models, we quantify the trade-off between these two options in RCP2.6: an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenario likely to limit global warming below 2°C. In our best-case illustrative assumption of conventional mitigation, negative emissions of 0.5–3Gt C (gigatonnes of carbon) per year and storage capacity of 50–250 Gt C are required. In our worst case, those requirements are 7–11Gt C per year and 1,000–1,600Gt C, respectively. Because these figures have not been shown to be feasible, we conclude that development of negative emission technologies should be accelerated, but also that conventional mitigation must remain a substantial part of any climate policy aiming at the 2-°C target. GR - I'd quibble with the comment "that these figures have not been shown to be feasible". In fact 55% of our emissions or 10 x 0.55 = 5.5 Gt CO2 /yr are currently removed from the atmosphere by natural CDR. Granted much of this CDR is leakily stored and there are negative consequences to the ocean (acidification), but there are ideas out there as to how this can be improved. So what are we waiting for - some emission reduction policy miracle from COP 21? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
