Carbon dioxide removal

Short description: Removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide through human activity

This page is about removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For technologies that remove carbon dioxide directly from industrial facilities and power plants, see Carbon capture and storage.

Planting trees is a nature-based way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; however, the effect may only be temporary in some cases.[1][2]

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a process in which carbon dioxide (CO
2) is removed from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities and durably stored in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.[3]: 2221 This process is also known as carbon removal, greenhouse gas removal or negative emissions. CDR is more and more often integrated into climate policy, as an element of climate change mitigation strategies.[4][5] Achieving net zero emissions will require first and foremost deep and sustained cuts in emissions, and then—in addition—the use of CDR ("CDR is what puts the net into net zero emissions" [6]). In the future, CDR may be able to counterbalance emissions that are technically difficult to eliminate, such as some agricultural and industrial emissions.[7]: 114

CDR includes methods that are implemented on land or in aquatic systems. Land-based methods include afforestation, reforestation, agricultural practices that sequester carbon in soils (carbon farming), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture combined with storage.[7][8] There are also CDR methods that use oceans and other water bodies. Those are called ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement,[9] wetland restoration and blue carbon approaches.[7] A detailed analysis needs to be performed to assess how much negative emissions a particular process achieves. This analysis includes life cycle analysis and "monitoring, reporting, and verification" (MRV) of the entire process.[10] Carbon capture and storage (CCS) are not regarded as CDR because CCS does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

As of 2023, CDR is estimated to remove around 2 gigatons of CO
2 per year.[11] This is equivalent to about 4% of the greenhouse gases emitted per year by human activities.[12]: 8 There is potential to remove and sequester up to 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by using those CDR methods which can be safely and economically deployed now.[12] However, quantifying the exact amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by CDR is difficult.

## Contents

* 1 Definition
* 2 Categories
* 2.1 Concepts using similar terminology
* 3 Role in climate change mitigation
* 3.1 The politics of knowledge production
* 3.2 Critique and risks
* 3.3 Permanence
* 3.4 Current and potential scale
* 4 Methods
* 4.1 Overview listing based on technology readiness level
* 4.2 Afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management
* 4.3 Agricultural practices (carbon farming)
* 4.4 Biomass carbon removal and storage
* 4.4.1 Bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS)
* 4.4.2 Biochar carbon removal (BCR)
* 4.5 Direct air capture with carbon sequestration (DACCS)
* 4.6 Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)
* 5 Costs and economics
* 6 Removal of other greenhouse gases
* 7 See also
* 8 References
* 9 External links

## Definition

Template:Carbon cycle

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined by the IPCC as: "Anthropogenic activities removing CO
2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage, but excludes natural CO
2 uptake not directly caused by human activities."[3]: 2221

Synonyms for CDR include greenhouse gas removal (GGR),[13] negative emissions technology,[12] and carbon removal.[14] Technologies have been proposed for removing non-CO
2 greenhouse gases such as methane from the atmosphere,[15] but only carbon dioxide is currently feasible to remove at scale.[13] Therefore, in most contexts, greenhouse gas removal means carbon dioxide removal.

The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM (solar radiation management), if the techniques are used at a global scale.[16]: 6–11 The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.[3]

## Categories

CDR methods can be placed in different categories that are based on different criteria:[7]: 114

* Role in the carbon cycle (land-based biological; ocean-based biological; geochemical; chemical); or
* Timescale of storage (decades to centuries; centuries to millennia; thousand years or longer)

### Concepts using similar terminology

CDR can be confused with carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process in which carbon dioxide is collected from point-sources such as gas-fired power plants, whose smokestacks emit CO
2 in a concentrated stream. The CO
2 is then compressed and sequestered or utilized.[17] When used to sequester the carbon from a gas-fired power plant, CCS reduces emissions from continued use of the point source, but does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

## Role in climate change mitigation

Use of CDR reduces the overall rate at which humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.[7]: 114 The Earth's surface temperature will stabilize only after global emissions have been reduced to net zero,[18] which will require both aggressive efforts to reduce emissions and deployment of CDR.[7]: 114 It is not feasible to bring net emissions to zero without CDR as certain types of emissions are technically difficult to eliminate.[19]: 1261 Emissions that are difficult to eliminate include nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture,[7]: 114 aviation emissions,[12]: 3 and some industrial emissions.[7]: 114 In climate change mitigation strategies, the use of CDR counterbalances those emissions.[7]: 114

After net zero emissions have been achieved, CDR could be used to reduce atmospheric CO
2 concentrations, which could partially reverse the warming that has already occurred by that date.[19] All emission pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C by the year 2100 assume the use of CDR in combination with emission reductions.[20][21]

### The politics of knowledge production

Integrated assessment models constitute the backbone of Working Group III (Climate Mitigation) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The implementation of negative emissions in these models has been crucial in shaping the global policy agenda.[22][23] In other words, the possible scenarios do not represent all conceivable futures and are shaped by power relations and existing governance structures.[24][25] For this reason, there is a substantial body of research from the field of Science and Technology Studies examining the study of negative emissions. In this context, negative emissions are understood as a phenomenon of co-production of knowledge. According to Sheila Jasanoff, co-production refers to the joint production of knowledge and visions of the future.[26] She emphasizes that scientific ideas and their associated technological artifacts, such as models, develop together with the representations, identities, discourses, and institutions that give these ideas and objects practical effect and meaning.[27] From this perspective, expert organizations do not provide a neutral, factual basis for policy, but rather a set of performative and recurring assessment practices that shape the very policies they aim to evaluate.[28] Current research raises the question of the extent to which integrated assessment models and approaches such as negative emissions can also explore entirely alternative futures.[29]

### Critique and risks

Critics point out that CDR must not be regarded as a substitute for the required cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Oceanographer David Ho formulated it like this in 2023 "We must stop talking about deploying CDR as a solution today, when emissions remain high—as if it somehow replaces radical, immediate emission cuts.[6]

Reliance on large-scale deployment of CDR was regarded in 2018 as a "major risk" to achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C of warming, given the uncertainties in how quickly CDR can be deployed at scale.[30] Strategies for mitigating climate change that rely less on CDR and more on sustainable use of energy carry less of this risk.[30][31]

The possibility of large-scale future CDR deployment has been described as a moral hazard, as it could lead to a reduction in near-term efforts to mitigate climate change.[21]: 124 [12] However, the 2019 NASEM report concludes: "Any argument to delay mitigation efforts because NETs will provide a backstop drastically misrepresents their current capacities and the likely pace of research progress."[12]

CDR is meant to complement efforts in hard-to-abate sectors rather than replace mitigation. Limiting climate change to 1.5 °C and achieving net-zero emissions would entail substantial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere by the mid-century, but how much CDR is needed at country level over time is unclear. Equitable allocations of CDR, in many cases, exceed implied land and carbon storage capacities. Many countries have either insufficient land to contribute an equitable share of global CDR or insufficient geological storage capacity.[32]

Experts also highlight social and ecological limits for carbon dioxide removal, such as the land area required. For example, the combined land requirements of removal plans as per the global Nationally Determined Contributions in 2023 amounted to 1.2 billion hectares, which is equal to the combined size of global croplands.[33]

### Permanence

Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass. However, these biological stores are considered volatile carbon sinks as the long-term sequestration cannot be guaranteed. For example, natural events, such as wildfires or disease, economic pressures and changing political priorities can result in the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere.[34]

Biomass, such as trees, can be directly stored into the Earth's subsurface.[35] Furthermore, carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere can be stored in the Earth's crust by injecting it into the subsurface, or in the form of insoluble carbonate salts. This is because they are removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it indefinitely and presumably for a considerable duration (thousands to millions of years).

### Current and potential scale

As of 2023, CDR is estimated to remove about 2 gigatons of CO
2 per year, almost entirely by low-tech methods like reforestation and the creation of new forests.[11] This is equivalent to 4% of the greenhouse gases emitted per year by human activities.[12]: 8 A 2019 consensus study report by NASEM assessed the potential of all forms of CDR other than ocean fertilization that could be deployed safely and economically using current technologies, and estimated that they could remove up to 10 gigatons of CO
2 per year if fully deployed worldwide.[12] In 2018, all analyzed mitigation pathways that would prevent more than 1.5 °C of warming included CDR measures.[30]

Some mitigation pathways propose achieving higher rates of CDR through massive deployment of one technology; however, these pathways assume that hundreds of millions of hectares of cropland are converted to growing biofuel crops.[12] Further research in the areas of direct air capture, geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, and carbon mineralization could potentially yield technological advancements that make higher rates of CDR economically feasible.[12] Investing in nature-based solutions is considered a way to buy time for the advancement of engineered carbon removal methods, enabling their full deployment in the second half of the 21st century.[36]

## Methods

### Overview listing based on technology readiness level

The following is a list of known CDR methods in the order of their technology readiness level (TRL). The ones at the top have a high TRL of 8 to 9 (9 being the maximum possible value, meaning the technology is proven), the ones at the bottom have a low TRL of 1 to 2, meaning the technology is not proven or only validated at laboratory scale.[7]: 115

1. Afforestation/ reforestation
2. Soil carbon sequestration in croplands and grasslands
3. Peatland and coastal wetland restoration
4. Agroforestry, improved forest management
5. Biochar carbon removal (BCR)
6. Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS)
7. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
8. Enhanced weathering (alkalinity enhancement)
9. Blue carbon management in coastal wetlands (restoration of vegetated coastal ecosystems; an ocean-based biological CDR method which encompasses mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass beds)
10. Ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement that amplifies the oceanic carbon cycle

The CDR methods with the greatest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation efforts as per illustrative mitigation pathways are the land-based biological CDR methods (primarily afforestation/reforestation (A/R)) and/or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Some of the pathways also include direct air capture and storage (DACCS).[7]: 114

### Afforestation, reforestation, and forestry management

Trees use photosynthesis to absorb carbon dioxide and store the carbon in wood and soils.[14] Afforestation is the establishment of a forest in an area where there was previously no forest.[19]: 1794 Reforestation is the re-establishment of a forest that has been previously cleared.[19]: 1812 Forests are vital for human society, animals and plant species. This is because trees keep air clean, regulate the local climate and provide a habitat for numerous species.[37]

As trees grow they absorb CO
2 from the atmosphere and store it in living biomass, dead organic matter and soils. Afforestation and reforestation – sometimes referred to collectively as 'forestation' – facilitate this process of carbon removal by establishing or re-establishing forest areas. It takes forests approximately 10 years to ramp- up to the maximum sequestration rate.[38]: 26–28

Depending on the species, the trees will reach maturity after around 20 to 100 years, after which they store carbon but do not actively remove it from the atmosphere.[38]: 26–28 Carbon can be stored in forests indefinitely, but the storage can also be much more short-lived as trees are vulnerable to being cut, burned, or killed by disease or drought.[38]: 26–28 Once mature, forest products can be harvested and the biomass stored in long-lived wood products, or used for bioenergy or biochar. Consequent forest regrowth then allows continuing CO
2 removal.[38]: 26–28

Risks to deployment of new forest include the availability of land, competition with other land uses, and the comparatively long time from planting to maturity.[38]: 26–28

### Agricultural practices (carbon farming)

Carbon farming is a set of agricultural methods that aim to store carbon in the soil, crop roots, wood and leaves. The overall goal of carbon farming is to create a net loss of carbon from the atmosphere.[39] This is done by increasing the rate at which carbon is sequestered into soil and plant material. One option is to increase the soil organic carbon content using practices of soil regeneration. This can also aid plant growth, improve soil water retention capacity[40] and reduce fertilizer use.[41] Sustainable forest management is another tool that is used in carbon farming.[42]

Agricultural methods for carbon farming include adjusting how tillage and livestock grazing is done, using organic mulch or compost, working with biochar and terra preta, and changing the crop types. Methods used in forestry include for example reforestation and bamboo farming. Carbon farming is not without its challenges or disadvantages. This is because some of its methods can affect ecosystem services. For example, carbon farming could cause an increase of land clearing, monocultures and biodiversity loss.[43]

### Biomass carbon removal and storage

This section is an excerpt from Biomass carbon removal and storage[ edit ]

#### Bioenergy with carbon capture & storage (BECCS)

This section is an excerpt from Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage[ edit ]

#### Biochar carbon removal (BCR)

Main article: Earth:Biochar carbon removal

Biochar is created by the pyrolysis of biomass, and is under investigation as a method of carbon sequestration. Biochar is a charcoal that is used for agricultural purposes which also aids in carbon sequestration, the capture or hold of carbon. It is created using a process called pyrolysis, which is basically the act of high temperature heating biomass in an environment with low oxygen levels. What remains is a material known as char, similar to charcoal but is made through a sustainable process, thus the use of biomass.[44] Biomass is organic matter produced by living organisms or recently living organisms, most commonly plants or plant based material.[45] A study done by the UK Biochar Research Center has stated that, on a conservative level, biochar can store 1 gigaton of carbon per year. With greater effort in marketing and acceptance of biochar, the benefit of Biochar Carbon Removal could be the storage of 5–9 gigatons per year in soils.[46] However, at the moment, biochar is restricted by the terrestrial carbon storage capacity, when the system reaches the state of equilibrium, and requires regulation because of threats of leakage.[47]

### Direct air capture with carbon sequestration (DACCS)

The International Energy Agency reported growth in direct air capture global operating capacity.[48]

This section is an excerpt from Direct air capture[ edit ]

### Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)

CO2 sequestration in the ocean

There are several methods of sequestering carbon from the ocean, where dissolved carbonate in the form of carbonic acid is in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide.[9] These include ocean fertilization, the purposeful introduction of plant nutrients to the upper ocean.[49][50] While one of the more well-researched carbon dioxide removal approaches, ocean fertilization would only sequester carbon on a timescale of 10–100 years. While surface ocean acidity may decrease as a result of nutrient fertilization, sinking organic matter will remineralize, increasing deep ocean acidity. A 2021 report on CDR indicates that there is medium-high confidence that the technique could be efficient and scalable at low cost, with medium environmental risks.[51] Ocean fertilization is estimated to be able to sequester 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$8 to $80 per tonne.[9]

Ocean alkalinity enhancement involves grinding, dispersing, and dissolving minerals such as olivine, limestone, silicates, or calcium hydroxide to precipitate carbonate sequestered as deposits on the ocean floor.[52] The removal potential of alkalinity enhancement is uncertain, and estimated at between 0.1 and 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$100 to $150 per tonne.[9]

Electrochemical techniques such as electrodialysis can remove carbonate from seawater using electricity. While such techniques used in isolation are estimated to be able to remove 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$150 to $2,500 per tonne,[9] these methods are much less expensive when performed in conjunction with seawater processing such as desalination, where salt and carbonate are simultaneously removed.[53] Preliminary estimates suggest that the cost of such carbon removal can be paid for in large part if not entirely from the sale of the desalinated water produced as a byproduct.[54]

## Costs and economics

The cost of CDR differs substantially depending on the maturity of the technology employed as well as the economics of both voluntary carbon removal markets and the physical output; for example, the pyrolysis of biomass produces biochar that has various commercial applications, including soil regeneration and wastewater treatment.[55] DAC cost from $94 to $600 per tonne,[56][57][58] biochar from $200 to $584 per tonne[59] and nature-based solutions (such as reforestation and afforestation) to be less than $50 per tonne.[56] The fact that biochar commands a higher price in the carbon removal market than nature-based solutions reflects the fact that it is a more durable sink with carbon being sequestered for hundreds or even thousands of years while nature-based solutions represent a more volatile form of storage, which risks related to forest fires, pests, economic pressures and changing political priorities.[60] It is important to note that different CDR removal technologies could have their design and operational advantages, for example, while nature-based solutions are cheap, DAC plant that captures 1 MtCO2 per year using a land area of 0.4–1.5 km2 (99–371 acres) is equivalent to the CO2 capture rates of roughly 46 million trees, requiring approximately 3,098–4,647 km2 (765,494–1,148,241 acres) of land.[57][61][62] The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting states that to be compatible with the Paris Agreement: "...organizations must commit to gradually increase the percentage of carbon removal offsets they procure with the view of exclusively sourcing carbon removals by mid-century."[60] These initiatives along with the development of new industry standards for engineered carbon removal, such as the Puro Standard, will help to support the growth of the carbon removal market.[63]

Although CDR is not covered by the EU Allowance as of 2021, the European Commission is preparing for carbon removal certification and considering carbon contracts for difference.[64][65] CDR might also in future be added to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.[66] As of end 2021 carbon prices for both these cap-and-trade schemes currently based on carbon reductions, as opposed to carbon removals, remained below $100.[67][68] After the diffusion of net-zero targets, CDR plays a more important role in key emerging economies (e.g. Brazil, China, and India).[69]

As of early 2023, financing has fell short of the sums required for high-tech CDR methods to contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Though available funds have recently increased substantially. Most of this increase has been from voluntary private sector initiatives.[70] Such as a private sector alliance led by Stripe with prominent members including Meta, Google and Shopify, which in April 2022 revealed a nearly $1 billion fund to reward companies able to permanently capture & store carbon. According to senior Stripe employee Nan Ransohoff, the fund was "roughly 30 times the carbon-removal market that existed in 2021. But it's still 1,000 times short of the market we need by 2050."[71] The predominance of private sector funding has raised concerns as historically, voluntary markets have proved "orders of magnitude"[70] smaller than those brought about by government policy. As of 2023 however, various governments have increased their support for CDR; these include Sweden, Switzerland, and the US. Recent activity from the US government includes the June 2022 Notice of Intent to fund the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $3.5 billion CDR program, and the signing into law of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contains the 45Q tax to enhance the CDR market.[70][72]

## Removal of other greenhouse gases

Although some researchers have suggested methods for removing methane, others say that nitrous oxide would be a better subject for research due to its longer lifetime in the atmosphere.[73]

## See also

* Earth:Biological carbon fixation - Series of interconnected biochemical reactions
* Physics:Carbon dioxide scrubber - Device which absorbs carbon dioxide from circulated gas
* Earth:Carbon-neutral fuel - Type of fuel which have no net greenhouse gas emissions
* Earth:Climate change scenario - Hypothetical representation of potential future conditions

## References

1. ↑ Buis, Alan (November 7, 2019). "Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change". https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change.
2. ↑ Marshall, Michael (26 May 2020). "Planting trees doesn't always help with climate change" (in en). https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change.
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 IPCC, 2021: "Annex VII: Glossary". Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.). In "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022
4. ↑ Schenuit, Felix; Colvin, Rebecca; Fridahl, Mathias; McMullin, Barry; Reisinger, Andy; Sanchez, Daniel L.; Smith, Stephen M.; Torvanger, Asbjørn et al. (2021-03-04). "Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases". Frontiers in Climate 3. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.638805. ISSN 2624-9553. Bibcode: 2021FrCli...3.8805S.
5. ↑ Geden, Oliver (May 2016). "An actionable climate target" (in en). Nature Geoscience 9 (5): 340–342. doi:10.1038/ngeo2699. ISSN 1752-0908. Bibcode: 2016NatGe...9..340G. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2699. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ho, David T. (2023-04-04). "Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative" (in En). Nature 616 (7955): 9. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00953-x. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 37016122. Bibcode: 2023Natur.616....9H. https://rdcu.be/dbFbB.
7. ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 M. Pathak, R. Slade, P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Pichs-Madruga, D. Ürge-Vorsatz,2022: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.002.
8. ↑ Rackley, Steve; Andrews, Graham; Clery, Diarmaid; De Richter, Renaud; Dowson, George; Knops, Pol; Li, We; Mccord, Stephen et al. (2023) (in en). Negative Emissions Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-12-819663-2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128196632/negative-emissions-technologies-for-climate-change-mitigation.
9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 Lebling, Katie; Northrop, Eliza; McCormick, Colin; Bridgwater, Liz (November 15, 2022), "Toward Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities" (in en), World Resources Institute: 11, doi:10.46830/wrirpt.21.00090, https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2022-11/towards-responsible-and-informed-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal.pdf
10. ↑ Schenuit, Felix; Gidden, Matthew J.; Boettcher, Miranda; Brutschin, Elina; Fyson, Claire; Gasser, Thomas; Geden, Oliver; Lamb, William F. et al. (2023-10-03). "Secure robust carbon dioxide removal policy through credible certification" (in en). Communications Earth & Environment 4 (1): 349. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01014-x. ISSN 2662-4435. Bibcode: 2023ComEE...4..349S.
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Smith, Steve (2023-01-19). "Guest post: The state of 'carbon dioxide removal' in seven charts" (in en). https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-state-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-in-seven-charts/.
12. ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2018-10-24) (in en). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-48452-7. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda. Retrieved February 22, 2020.
13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 "Greenhouse Gas Removal" (in en-GB). https://netzeroclimate.org/greenhouse-gas-removal/.
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Mulligan, James; Ellison, Gretchen; Levin, Kelly; Lebling, Katie; Rudee, Alex; Leslie-Bole, Haley (2023-03-17). "6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Atmosphere" (in en). World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky.
15. ↑ Jackson, Robert B.; Abernethy, Sam; Canadell, Josep G.; Cargnello, Matteo; Davis, Steven J.; Féron, Sarah; Fuss, Sabine; Heyer, Alexander J. et al. (2021-11-15). "Atmospheric methane removal: a research agenda" (in en). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 379 (2210). doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0454. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 34565221. Bibcode: 2021RSPTA.37900454J.
16. ↑ IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
17. ↑ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Glossary — Global Warming of 1.5 °C". https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/.
18. ↑ "The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. — IPCC". https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/.
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 IPCC (2022). Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R. et al.. eds. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press (In Press). doi:10.1017/9781009157926. ISBN 978-1-009-15792-6. https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf.
20. ↑ Page 4-81, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1, 9/8/21, https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018: Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 °C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 93-174. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.004
22. ↑ McLaren, Duncan; Markusson, Nils (May 2020). "The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets" (in en). Nature Climate Change 10 (5): 392–397. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0740-1. ISSN 1758-6798. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0740-1.
23. ↑ Beck, Silke; Mahony, Martin (2018). "The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience" (in en). Global Sustainability 1: e8. doi:10.1017/sus.2018.7. ISSN 2059-4798. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/politics-of-anticipation-the-ipcc-and-the-negative-emissions-technologies-experience/459F9FD3151BEC76CE3F1363571B2B3B.
24. ↑ van Beek, Lisette; Hajer, Maarten; Pelzer, Peter; van Vuuren, Detlef; Cassen, Christophe (2020-11-01). "Anticipating futures through models: the rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970". Global Environmental Change 65. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191. ISSN 0959-3780. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307743.
25. ↑ Rubiano Rivadeneira, Natalia; Carton, Wim (2022-10-01). "(In)justice in modelled climate futures: A review of integrated assessment modelling critiques through a justice lens". Energy Research & Social Science 92. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102781. ISSN 2214-6296. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629622002845.
26. ↑ Jasanoff, Sheila, ed (2004-07-31) (in en). States of Knowledge (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203413845. ISBN 978-1-134-32834-5. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134328345.
27. ↑ Beck, S.; Oomen, Jeroen (2021-09-01). "Imagining the corridor of climate mitigation – What is at stake in IPCC's politics of anticipation?". Environmental Science & Policy 123: 169–178. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.011. ISSN 1462-9011. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901121001374.
28. ↑ Beck, Silke; Mahony, Martin (2018). "The IPCC and the new map of science and politics" (in en). WIREs Climate Change 9 (6). doi:10.1002/wcc.547. ISSN 1757-7799. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.547.
29. ↑ Krawczyk, Felix; Braun, Andreas Ch. (2025-03-01). "Models like heroes? Making Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) ready for deep decarbonization and a socio-economic transformation". Energy Research & Social Science 121. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2025.103959. ISSN 2214-6296. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625000404.
30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 30.2 "SR15 Technical Summary". https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf.
31. ↑ Anderson, K.; Peters, G. (2016-10-14). "The trouble with negative emissions" (in en). Science 354 (6309): 182–183. doi:10.1126/science.aah4567. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 27738161. Bibcode: 2016Sci...354..182A. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah4567. Retrieved April 28, 2020.
32. ↑ Yang, Pu; Mi, Zhifu; Wei, Yi-Ming; Hanssen, Steef V; Liu, Lan-Cui; Coffman, D'Maris; Sun, Xinlu; Liao, Hua et al. (2023-11-06). "The global mismatch between equitable carbon dioxide removal liability and capacity" (in en). National Science Review 10 (12). doi:10.1093/nsr/nwad254. ISSN 2095-5138. PMID 38021166. 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
33. ↑ Deprez, Alexandra; Leadley, Paul; Dooley, Kate; Williamson, Phil; Cramer, Wolfgang; Gattuso, Jean-Pierre; Rankovic, Aleksandar; Carlson, Eliot L. et al. (2024-02-02). "Sustainability limits needed for CO 2 removal" (in en). Science 383 (6682): 484–486. doi:10.1126/science.adj6171. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 38301011. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj6171.
34. ↑ Myles, Allen (September 2020). "The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting". https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf.
35. ↑ F. Scholz, U. Hasse (2008-05-15). "Permanent wood sequestration: The Solution to the Global Carbon Dioxide Problem". ChemSusChem (www.chemsuschem.org) 1 (5): 381–384. doi:10.1002/cssc.200800048. PMID 18702128. Bibcode: 2008ChSCh...1..381S. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cssc.200800048. Retrieved 2023-12-22.
36. ↑ Streck, Charlotte; Minoli, Sara; Roe, Stephanie; Barry, Christian; Brander, Matthew; Chiquier, Solene; Cullity, Garrett; Ellis, Peter et al. (2025). "Considering durability in carbon dioxide removal strategies for climate change mitigation". Climate Policy 0: 1–9. doi:10.1080/14693062.2025.2501267. ISSN 1469-3062.
37. ↑ "Forest Protection & Climate Change: Why Is It Important?" (in en). 2021-05-13. https://climatetransform.com/forest-protection-climate-change-why-is-it-important.
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 Greenhouse Gas Removal.. London: The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2018. ISBN 978-1-78252-349-9. OCLC 1104595614. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal. 50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
39. ↑ Nath, Arun Jyoti; Lal, Rattan; Das, Ashesh Kumar (2015-01-01). "Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading" (in en). Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 654–663. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2015.03.002. ISSN 2351-9894. Bibcode: 2015GEcoC...3..654N.
40. ↑ "Carbon Farming | Carbon Cycle Institute" (in en-US). http://www.carboncycle.org/carbon-farming/.
41. ↑ Almaraz, Maya; Wong, Michelle Y.; Geoghegan, Emily K.; Houlton, Benjamin Z. (2021). "A review of carbon farming impacts on nitrogen cycling, retention, and loss" (in en). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1505 (1): 102–117. doi:10.1111/nyas.14690. ISSN 0077-8923. PMID 34580879. Bibcode: 2021NYASA1505..102A. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.14690.
42. ↑ Jindal, Rohit; Swallow, Brent; Kerr, John (2008). "Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges" (in en). Natural Resources Forum 32 (2): 116–130. doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x. ISSN 1477-8947. Bibcode: 2008NRF....32..116J.
43. ↑ Lin, Brenda B.; Macfadyen, Sarina; Renwick, Anna R.; Cunningham, Saul A.; Schellhorn, Nancy A. (2013-10-01). "Maximizing the Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery". BioScience 63 (10): 793–803. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.6. ISSN 0006-3568.
44. ↑ "What is biochar?". University of Edinburgh Kings Buildings Edinburgh. http://www.biochar.ac.uk/what_is_biochar.php.
45. ↑ "What is Biomass?". Direct.gov.uk. http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,15049&_dad=portal.
46. ↑ "Biochar reducing and removing CO
2 while improving soils: A significant sustainable response to climate change". UK Biochar research Center. http://www.ierm.ed.ac.uk/homes/sshackle/WP2.pdf.CO2+while+improving+soils:+A+significant+sustainable+response+to+climate+change&rft.atitle=&rft.pub=UK+Biochar+research+Center&rft_id=http://www.ierm.ed.ac.uk/homes/sshackle/WP2.pdf&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikibooks.org:Earth:Carbon_dioxide_removal">
47. ↑ Keller, David P.; Lenton, Andrew; Littleton, Emma W.; Oschlies, Andreas; Scott, Vivian; Vaughan, Naomi E. (2018-09-01). "The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle" (in en). Current Climate Change Reports 4 (3): 250–265. doi:10.1007/s40641-018-0104-3. ISSN 2198-6061. PMID 30956937. Bibcode: 2018CCCR....4..250K.
48. ↑ "Direct Air Capture / A key technology for net zero". April 2022. p. 18. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/78633715-15c0-44e1-81df-41123c556d57/DirectAirCapture_Akeytechnologyfornetzero.pdf.
49. ↑ Matear, R. J.; B. Elliott (2004). "Enhancement of oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by macronutrient fertilization". J. Geophys. Res. 109 (C4): C04001. doi:10.1029/2000JC000321. Bibcode: 2004JGRC..109.4001M. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2000JC000321.shtml. Retrieved 19 January 2009.
50. ↑ Jones, I.S.F.; Young, H.E. (1997). "Engineering a large sustainable world fishery". Environmental Conservation 24 (2): 99–104. doi:10.1017/S0376892997000167. Bibcode: 1997EnvCo..24...99J.
51. ↑ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2021-12-08) (in en). A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. doi:10.17226/26278. ISBN 978-0-309-08761-2. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26278/a-research-strategy-for-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration.
52. ↑ "Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis" (in en). 2021-06-23. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/cloud-spraying-and-hurricane-slaying-could-geoengineering-fix-the-climate-crisis.
53. ↑ Mustafa, Jawad; Mourad, Aya A. -H. I.; Al-Marzouqi, Ali H.; El-Naas, Muftah H. (2020-06-01). "Simultaneous treatment of reject brine and capture of carbon dioxide: A comprehensive review" (in en). Desalination 483. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2020.114386. ISSN 0011-9164. Bibcode: 2020Desal.48314386M. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916419316042.
54. ↑ Mustafa, Jawad; Al-Marzouqi, Ali H.; Ghasem, Nayef; El-Naas, Muftah H.; Van der Bruggen, Bart (February 2023). "Electrodialysis process for carbon dioxide capture coupled with salinity reduction: A statistical and quantitative investigation" (in en). Desalination 548. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2022.116263. Bibcode: 2023Desal.54816263M. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0011916422007184.
55. ↑ "How Finland's Puro.earth plans to scale up carbon removal to help the world reach net zero emissions". 1 July 2021. https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles/how-finlands-puro-earth-plans-to-scale-up-carbon-removal-to-help-the-world-reach-net-zero-emissions/.
56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Lebling, Katie; McQueen, Noah; Pisciotta, Max; Wilcox, Jennifer (2021-01-06). "Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal" (in en). World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal.
57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 Lilonfe, Sylvanus; Rodgers, Sarah; Abdul-Manan, Amir F. N.; Dimitriou, Ioanna; McKechnie, Jon (2025-06-01). "Technical, economic and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analyses of solid sorbent direct air capture technologies". Carbon Capture Science & Technology 15. doi:10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100380. ISSN 2772-6568. Bibcode: 2025CCST...1500380L.
58. ↑ Keith, David W.; Holmes, Geoffrey; Angelo, David St; Heidel, Kenton (2018-08-15). "A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere" (in English). Joule 2 (8): 1573–1594. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006. ISSN 2542-4785.
59. ↑ Shackley, Simon; Hammond, Jim; Gaunt, John; Ibarrola, Rodrigo (2011). "The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK". Carbon Management 2 (3): 335–356. doi:10.4155/cmt.11.22. ISSN 1758-3004. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4155/cmt.11.22. Retrieved 2025-07-21.
60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 Myles, Allen (February 2020). "The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting". University of Oxford. https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf.
61. ↑ Fasihi, Mahdi; Efimova, Olga; Breyer, Christian (2019-07-01). "Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants". Journal of Cleaner Production 224: 957–980. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086. ISSN 0959-6526.
62. ↑ "This Is The Impact Of 1 Million Trees" (in en-US). 2019-11-26. https://blog.tentree.com/this-is-the-impact-of-1-million-trees/.
63. ↑ Giles, Jim (10 February 2020). "Carbon markets get real on removal". https://www.greenbiz.com/article/trend-carbon-markets-get-real-removal.
64. ↑ Tamme, Eve; Beck, Larissa Lee (2021). "European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities". Frontiers in Climate 3: 120. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.682882. ISSN 2624-9553. Bibcode: 2021FrCli...3.2882T.
65. ↑ Elkerbout, Milan; Bryhn, Julie. "Setting the context for an EU policy framework for negative emissions". https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PI2021-12_EU-policy-framework-for-negative-emissions.pdf.
66. ↑ "Greenhouse Gas Removals: Summary of Responses to the Call for Evidence". HM Government. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026494/ggr-cfe-summary-of-responses.pdf.
67. ↑ Evans, Michael (2021-12-08). "Spotlight: EU carbon price strengthens to record highs in November" (in en). https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/120821-spotlight-eu-carbon-price-strengthens-to-record-highs-in-november.
68. ↑ "Pricing Carbon". https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon.
69. ↑ Schenuit, Felix; Brutschin, Elina; Geden, Oliver; Guo, Fei; Mohan, Aniruddh; Oliveira Fiorini, Ana Carolina; Saluja, Sonakshi; Schaeffer, Roberto et al. (2024). "Taking stock of carbon dioxide removal policy in emerging economies: Developments in Brazil, China, and India". Climate Policy 25: 89–108. doi:10.1080/14693062.2024.2353148. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2024.2353148?src=.
70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 70.2 Honegger, Matthias (2023). "Toward the effective and fair funding of CO2 removal technologies". Nature Communications 14 (1): 2111. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36199-4. PMID 36750567. Bibcode: 2023NatCo..14..534H.
71. ↑ Robinson Meyer (2022-04-23). "We've Never Seen a Carbon-Removal Plan Like This Before". https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/big-tech-investment-carbon-removal/629545/.
72. ↑ Katie Brigham (2022-06-28). "Why Big Tech is pouring money into carbon removal". https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/why-companies-like-stripe-meta-and-alphabet-are-behind-carbon-removal.html.
73. ↑ Lackner, Klaus S. (2020). "Practical constraints on atmospheric methane removal" (in en). Nature Sustainability 3 (5): 357. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0496-7. ISSN 2398-9629. Bibcode: 2020NatSu...3..357L.

## External links

* Factsheet about CDR by IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WG III
* Deep Dives by Carbon180. Info about carbon removal solutions.
* The Road to Ten Gigatons - Carbon Removal Scale Up Challenge Game.
* The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report, 2nd edition 2024-06-03.
* Land - the planet's carbon sink, United Nations.

* v
* t
* e

Global warming

Temperatures

* Geologic record
* Hiatus
* Historical climatology
* Instrumental record
* Proxy data
* Record of the past 1,000 years

Causes

| Human

* Attribution of recent climate change
* Aviation
* Black carbon
* Carbon dioxide
* Deforestation
* Fossil fuel
* Global dimming
* Greenhouse effect
* Infrared window
* Greenhouse gases
* Land use, land-use change, and forestry
* Tropospheric ozone

|

Natural|

* Bond events
* Climate variability
* AMO
* ENSO
* IOD
* PDO
* Global cooling
* Milankovitch cycles
* Orbital forcing
* Solar variation
* Volcanism

History

* History of climate change science
* Atmospheric thermodynamics
* Svante Arrhenius
* James Hansen
* Charles David Keeling

Effects and issues

| Physical|

* Abrupt climate change
* Anoxic event
* Arctic methane emissions
* Drought
* Ocean acidification
* Ozone depletion
* Physical impacts
* Retreat of glaciers since 1850
* Runaway climate change
* Sea level rise
* Season creep
* Shutdown of thermohaline circulation

|

Flora and fauna|

* Climate change and ecosystems
* Effects on plant biodiversity
* Effects on marine mammals
* Extinction risk from global warming
* Forest dieback

Society|

* Climate change and agriculture
* Climate change and ecosystems
* Climate change and gender
* Climate change and poverty
* Economics of global warming
* Effects on health
* Effects on humans
* Environmental migrant
* Fisheries and climate change
* Industry and society

By country|

* Australia
* South Asia
* India
* Nepal

Society and climate change

| General|

* Environmental ethics
* Climate movement
* Media coverage of global warming
* Public opinion on global warming
* Popular culture
* Scientific consensus on climate change
* Scientists who disagree with the mainstream assessment
* Climate change denial

|

By country & region|

* Africa
* Arctic
* Argentina
* Australia
* Bangladesh
* Belgium
* Canada
* China
* Europe
* European Union
* Finland
* Grenada
* India
* Japan
* Luxembourg
* New Zealand
* Norway
* Russia
* Scotland
* South Korea
* Sweden
* Tuvalu
* Turkey
* United Kingdom
* United States

Politics

| General|

* Climate change denial
* Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
* United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC / FCCC)
* Global climate regime

|

International|

* Kyoto Protocol
* Clean Development Mechanism
* Joint Implementation
* Bali Road Map
* Copenhagen Summit
* Paris Agreement
* United States withdrawal

Regional policy|

* Clean Power Plan
* California Climate Credit
* European Climate Change Programme
* G8 Climate Change Roundtable
* United Kingdom Climate Change Programme
* Regional climate change initiatives in the United States
* List of climate change initiatives

Protest|

* Extinction Rebellion
* Global Climate March
* List of environmental protests
* School strike for climate

Mitigation

| Emissions reduction|

* Carbon credit
* Carbon-neutral fuel
* Carbon offset
* Carbon tax
* Emissions trading
* Fossil fuel phase-out

|

Carbon-free energy|

* Efficient energy use
* Renewable energy
* Low-carbon economy
* Nuclear power
* Carbon capture and storage
* Energy transition

Personal|

* Individual action on climate change
* Simple living

Other|

* Carbon dioxide removal
* Climate change mitigation scenarios
* Climate engineering
* Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
* Reforestation
* Urban reforestation

Climate change adaptation

| Strategies|

* Desalination
* Drought tolerance
* Sustainable development
* Weather modification

|

Programmes|

* Land allocation decision support system

Background and theory

| Measurements|

* Satellite measurements

|

Theory|

* Albedo
* Carbon sink
* Climate change (general concept)
* Climate sensitivity
* Cloud forcing
* Feedbacks
* Effective temperature
* Earth's energy budget
* Global warming potential
* Radiative forcing

Research|

* Paleoclimatology
* Paleotempestology
* Climate model

* Glossary
* Index
* Climate change
* Global warming
* Portal

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon dioxide removal. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Earth:Carbon_dioxide_removal&oldid=4000746"
*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template