Hundreds of scientists gathered in Oxford last week to discuss the many different ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the role it can play in tackling climate change.
The third international conference on negative CO2 emissions focused on the latest science, policy gaps and methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR). (Carbon Brief also reported from the first conference in Gothenburg in 2018.)
Discussions ranged from the potential of different technologies to the need to avoid CDR methods drawing attention away from emissions reductions.
Around 360 scientists, researchers, industry representatives and other stakeholders attended the four-day event at the University of Oxford, along with more than 150 people online.
Talks centred on the “natural” and “novel” ways to take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it on land, underground or in the ocean.
Carbon Brief attended the conference to report on the dozens of plenaries and parallel sessions that focused on a wide range of issues around CO2 removal.
- The state of CO2 removal
- What CO2 removal techniques were discussed?
- How is CDR included in government policies?
- How does CDR fit into future emissions pathways?
- What are the potential problems with CO2 removal?
- What are the next steps for CO2 removal?
The state of CO2 removal
Dr Steve Smith – the executive director of Oxford Net Zero and CO2RE – kicked off the conference in the opening plenary.
Smith is the lead author on the second “State of CDR” report, which outlines the current state of knowledge around CDR, and used his talk to outline some of its findings. (Read Carbon Brief’s nine key takeaways from the report here.)
Smith explained that “conventional” CDR – mainly through land use, land-use change and forestry activities – make up the “lion’s share” of current CDR efforts, accounting for almost all of the current 2bn tonnes of CO2 removed from the atmosphere each year. (Humans emit around 40bn tonnes each year.)
“Novel” CDR methods currently remove a much-smaller 1.3m tonnes of CO2 each year – less than 0.1% of total carbon dioxide removals – he noted.
Of the novel approaches, he explained that biochar is the main player. This is followed by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which is confined to “essentially two plants in the US”.
All other CDR efforts, such as direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) are a “tiny, tiny sliver”. This breakdown is outlined in the graphic from the report below.
Smith noted that almost all current model simulations that limit future warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels use CDR methods such as BECCS.
However, he said that many models – such as those that feed into reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – begin their projections from the year 2020. Many models assume that emissions already peaked in 2020, but emissions today are continuing to rise. Smith warned:
“We are already overshooting.”
Speaking to Carbon Brief at the conference, Smith said that there is a “tension” between fast and responsible action to scale up carbon dioxide removals. He added:
“People are seeing the urgency of the climate problem and saying we need to scale lots of things now and fast.
“So probably the basic biogeochemical principles are sound, but [an important step is] actually measuring how much carbon is taken up, how quickly and what are the broader impacts on the environment and on people.”
In a separate session, experts discussed “measurement, reporting and verification” – ways to assess methods of CDR technologies to ensure they are working effectively. This is similar to discussions around monitoring the voluntary carbon market. (See Carbon Brief’s special series on carbon offsetting for more.)
Dr Paul Zakkour from Carbon Counts, a climate and energy consulting company, opened the second day of the conference by discussing the importance and challenges of monitoring, reporting and verifying claims about CO2 removals.
Zakkour said the most important principles for any carbon removal carbon credits are ensuring that they are real, measurable, additional, not double counted, not leaking and permanent.
He said there are more than 50 methodologies crediting “natural” methods of CDR such as forest management and soil organic carbon.
There are around 20 methodologies for novel CDR methods. Almost all of these methodologies were developed in just the past three years, he said.
However, he added that it is unclear how many projects are actually using these methodologies to enter voluntary carbon markets.
Zakkour noted that there is a “compromise” between ramping up carbon removals and ensuring they are done effectively, safely and in line with best scientific practices.
What CO2 removal techniques were discussed?
Over the four-day conference, there were dozens of breakout sessions discussing different CO2 removal techniques, ranging from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to enhanced rock weathering. Carbon Brief focuses on a few of the methods here:
Forestry
Among the land-based CDR methods, forestry was a major point of discussion.
Dr Yuan Yao from Yale University discussed her ongoing research into sequestering carbon through afforestation and reforestation on “marginal land” in Brazil. Her research team examined the CO2 impacts of “innovative forest mosaics”.
Xueyuan Gao from the University of Maryland, whose research is currently under peer review, developed a novel framework to try and detect tropical tree cover gains, using forest management and cover change datasets. The study particularly focused on former agricultural lands.
At a separate session focused on Earth system modelling, Prof Julia Pongratz – a group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology – told the conference that modelling studies on large-scale afforestation and reforestation often involve “unrealistic” or “unambitious” spatiotemporal patterns.
Pongratz presented a pattern of afforestation and reforestation that she and her team developed. The pattern is aligned with “ambitious” country pledges and would result in 600m hectares of afforested/reforested land by 2060, while staying in line with “biodiversity and techno/socio/economic considerations”, she said.
This level of afforestation and reforestation would capture enough CO2 to offset global warming by 0.2C by the end of the century, Pongratz told the conference.
And at another session, Dr Clemens Schwingshackl, a researcher at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, presented results from the state of CDR report on afforestation and reforestation. He explained that CDR from these two sources currently capture around 2,000m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) per year – equivalent to around 5-6% of current fossil fuel emissions.
He added that there are “hotspots” of tree planting. The main one is in China, where there are lots of forest plantations, he explained. And the other is in Europe, where a long history of deforestation is now being reversed in many areas.
Dr Kate Dooley, a lecturer in human geography at the University of Melbourne, presented the results of the 2022 land gap report, which assesses how much land is required to meet current NDCs and net-zero pledges.
Dooley, who is lead author on the report, explained that 194 countries were assessed and that, collectively, their afforestation, reforestation and BECCS pledges require one billion hectares of land. This is an ”unprecedented” amount of land-use change, which could increase risks to ecosystems, food security and the durability of carbon stocks, she warned.
She added that 70% of the total land required by these climate pledges comes from just a few, high-emitting countries.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Another session focused on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), a technology where plants are burned for energy and the resulting CO2 emissions are captured from air and stored under land or sea.
Dr Mai Bui from Imperial College London outlined research around minimising the cost of BECCS while ensuring the technology is CO2-efficient.
Her research shows that using biomass with a “low carbon footprint” and reducing supply chain emissions can help to maximise the overall CO2 removals of BECCS. She said that this is important in ensuring that the technology is implemented correctly, noting:
“You can do BECCs badly and end up emitting more CO2 than you can capture.”
Prof Iain Donnison from Aberystwyth University discussed the possibilities and realities of upscaling “perennial biomass crops” in the UK for the purpose of removing GHG emissions.
He said that a “significant challenge” with BECCS is producing enough wood and other types of biomass to burn for the technology.
He and other researchers are looking at the technical barriers to scaling up biomass crops, trialling different plant options such as miscanthus. Another issue around increasing growth of biomass crops is incentivising farmers to grow them, he said, adding:
“How do we get these to be seen as a more usual option for farmers?”
Dr Sabine Egerer from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich discussed research looking at the different levels of efficiency of various land-based CO2 removal methods, namely afforestation and planting biomass crops for use in CDR technologies.
This research, which is currently undergoing peer review, finds that biomass plantations are more efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere over time. But this varies in different parts of the world, such as China where afforestation has more benefits.
Kristine Karstens from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research discussed ongoing research into the benefits of different ways to use biomass in CDR – residue recycling and BECCS.
Her findings show that using agricultural residues for BECCS has more benefits for carbon removal overall compared to residue recycling, per tonne of biomass.
Separately, Ruben Prutz – a PhD student at the Mercator Research Institute – talked about the implications of land-based CDR for biodiversity.
He looked at more than 130,000 species globally, and mapped how afforestation and BECCS would change biodiversity refugia – habitats that are less prone to extreme changes in environmental conditions than surrounding areas, and which often act as safe havens for species.
He showed that the impacts of land-based CDR are unequally distributed, mainly falling on countries in the global south.
There were also two conference sessions on direct air carbon capture, in which scientists discussed technological developments and the different engineering challenges that face the sector.
Soils and biochar
The ability of soils to sequester carbon from the atmosphere was a key discussion point at the conference. There was also a session on biochar – charcoal that is added to soils rather than burned as a fuel.
Prof Pete Smith from the University of Aberdeen discussed an ongoing systematic review looking at the side effects of different types of CDR on biodiversity, air, water quality and other factors (see: What are the next steps for CO2 removal?).
Smith said the research is not expected to yield “big shifts in the cost and potentials” of these methods, but it aims to provide deeper analysis on the co-benefits and trade-offs of each method.
He added that previous research has found there is a potential to remove 5bn tonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2e) each year from soils.
Dr Jeewani Peduru Hewa from Bangor University discussed ongoing research on greenhouse gas removals through peatland restoration, including applying biochar to peatlands.
A number of universities and NGOs are working together to restore different peatland sites across the UK to assess whether “innovative” land management can secure long-term greenhouse gas removal systems, she said, noting:
“When peatlands are healthy they are good for carbon sequestration. But if we drain the peatlands for agriculture or something else, it is a problem.”
Rewetting peatlands helps them to absorb carbon dioxide, but this can also cause methane emissions to rise. Her experimental research findings show that applying biochar to peatlands can lower both CO2 and methane emissions.
These findings were concluded over the course of one year and further research is needed to assess impacts over a longer time period, she said.
Marine CO2 removal
Removing carbon through the ocean was another significant discussion point at the conference.
Speaking in a plenary session on measuring, reporting and verification, Prof David Ho from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa said that marine carbon removal still has many challenges to overcome before it is feasible on a wide scale.
Assessing this type of carbon removal is “challenging” due to the ocean’s natural variability, carbonate chemistry, ocean mixing and circulation, Ho said. It is difficult to pinpoint one specific reason for a change or an increase in CO2 sequestration.
Ho said that “abiotic” methods of marine CO2 removal are “easier” to monitor, report on and verify. These include ocean alkalinity enhancement. Last month, the carbon removals registry Isometric said it released a “world first” protocol for ocean alkalinity carbon removal.
Asked by an audience member about whether marine CO2 removal should be excluded from carbon markets due to the level of uncertainties, Ho said the ocean has the “potential” to make an impact, but advised caution. He added:
“I think if we can do a good job of quantifying the uncertainties…this is how ramp-ups can work. If buyers and sellers can trust each other, I think the ocean can certainly play a role.”
In a separate session on marine CO2 removal, Dr Miranda Boettcher – a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs – presented the results of a workshop that she ran in Germany, in which she asked participants to rank the main risks of marine CDR.
She highlighted public opinion, political dynamics, the “performance” of science and pressure from industry as key conditions that will drive policy developments in marine CDR.
Separately, Dr Christine Merk – deputy director of the Global Commons and Climate Policy research centre at the Kiel Institute – presented the results of a survey held in six different countries on public perceptions of marine CDR.
She found that more than 80% of people in Germany and Canada had never heard of marine CDR, compared to 28% and 41% in Taiwan and China, respectively. She added that people are least likely to have heard of ocean acidity enhancement and most likely to have heard of marine-based BECCS.
How is CDR included in government policies?
The conference heard from a number of researchers about the role of government in regulating CO2 removal, including a plenary panel session dedicated to the topic of CDR in national policymaking.
Prof Gideon Henderson, a professor of Earth sciences and chief scientific adviser to the UK’s Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), spoke about how CDR is used in carbon markets.
Henderson said that a government’s role is to fix market failures through regulation and deregulation, and to be stewards of the environment. However, he noted that governments cannot easily regulate the voluntary carbon market and said it should “try to get more engaged” – for example, by implementing monitoring, reporting and verification measures.
He added that the voluntary carbon market is “not trusted” by many people, but argued that it is important to keep the market going, to enable experts to try things out and eventually build a more trusted system.
Speaking on national policies, he said that countries are “not quite there yet” and argued that CDR measures should be included in countries’ nationally determined pledges under the Paris Agreement.
Dr Fabiola Zerbini, director at the department of forests at Brazil’s Ministry of the Environment, told the conference that the country has pledged to restore 12m hectares of deforested land and reach “zero deforestation” by 2030.
The role of the government as a “catalyst” for this type of action is “key”, she said. She argued that until forests and the environmental services that they provide are considered to have “real value”, the system will need to be regulated by governments.
Prof Jennifer Wilcox, former principal deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Energy, told the conference about the CDR projects in place in the US. She highlighted the regional direct air capture (DAC) hubs program, which is investing $3.5bn into direct air capture.
She also talked about how the fossil fuel companies responsible for extraction could play an important role in CDR:
“It could be interesting for the energy companies responsible for resource extraction to realise they could leverage their structures to put carbon back into the ground. [We] need to steer energy companies so that when they put infrastructure in, it can be used for CDR.”
When asked about the upcoming US election, she said that the administration has put frameworks in place that will make their work sustainable and so she did not think that a Republican victory would cause all current projects to be “erased”. However, she did express concern about whether measures would be kept in place to make sure that the projects “benefit people”.
Dr Fabien Ramos, carbon removals lead at the European Commission, talked about policies that the EU is putting in place to monitor and verify CDR in its emission trading system, and the regulations being put in place to assess the quality of carbon offsets.
In a separate session on global policy, Harry Smith, a researcher from the University of East Anglia, presented his work on the inclusion of “residual” or “hard-to-abate” emissions in national policies. (Read Carbon Brief’s coverage of this study.)
Smith analysed the national climate strategies of 71 counties, and found that only 26 of them quantify residual emissions at the time of reaching net-zero emissions.
He noted that countries define their own residual emissions and found that the percentage of a country’s peak emissions that it considers “residual” can range from 5% to 50%.
He also explained that despite making up the majority of residual emissions, agricultural emissions are “hardly mentioned as residual”. Industry sources are mentioned the most, he found.
In a separate session, Klaas Korte from the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research discussed ongoing research into policies to incentivise the efficient use of CO2 removal in the agriculture sector.
“Carbon farming” – farm practices focused on climate mitigation – may be one way to bridge the gap between the EU’s “ambitious targets” to cut agricultural emissions and the reality of these cuts so far, he said.
His research showed a number of ways to make carbon farming more attractive than conventional methods: subsidising costs of CDR measures, implementing CDR requirements on state-owned lands and excluding conventional practices on state-owned land.
The best solution, he said, is a mix of payment for public goods that avoid adverse environmental effects and bridging knowledge gaps among farmers and other landowners.
Dr Lauri Kujanpää from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland discussed the carbon removal possibilities in Finland.
Kujanpää said that his research points to geological storage as a “key solution” for CO2 removal in Finland, but noted that the country currently has no national policy measures for this type of CO2 storage.
How does CDR fit into future emissions pathways?
Dr William Lamb from the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change discussed recent research on the CDR “gap”, which was covered by Carbon Brief.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, found that plans to “draw down” CO2 from the atmosphere “fall short” of the quantities needed to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
Assessing a range of scenarios for limiting warming to 1.5C, the authors found a “CDR gap” in 2050 of 0.4bn-5.5bn tonnes of CDR per year.
To fill this gap, Lamb said there is a need to identify and quantify country plans around CDR as nations are currently not required to specify these removals in the national plans submitted at COP climate summits.
He highlighted that there are differences in the land-use sector carbon emissions in national inventories and scientific models. (This was covered in more detail in a Carbon Brief guest post last year.)
Most countries only include plans about conventional, land-based CDR methods in their national plans up to 2030, Lamb explained. Some long-term emissions reduction plans include novel techniques such as BECCS.
Dr Matthew Gidden from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis discussed similar issues about aligning emissions scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with national land emissions inventories.
Gidden said there are a number of differences between the models and inventories, including how countries define their “managed land” and carbon fluxes.
His research, published in Nature last year, aligned the IPCC mitigation pathways with national greenhouse gas inventories to allow a direct comparison. The findings suggested that key emission-cutting goals are “harder to achieve” than currently outlined and that countries would have to reach net-zero emissions sooner than 2050.
Dr Kati Koponen from VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland presented findings from a project assessing the pathways for CDR in the EU.
These findings highlighted the importance of focusing on both natural and novel CDR methods, but also mentioned the need to keep dependence on CDR “to a minimum”.
Koponen said the findings also show that existing EU CDR policies “are not sufficient for deep emission reductions”.
Dr Jennifer Pett-Ridge from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory outlined the findings of a recent report on the options for CDR in the US.
The report – put together by almost 70 scientists and 13 institutions – looks at regional possibilities for CDR and storage. Pett-Ridge said the US can reduce 1bn tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year by 2050 using CDR methods, at an annual cost of $129bn.
She said it is sensible to initially focus on forestry and soils. Biomass conversion also has big potentials, she added. The researchers also analysed issues in inequity and justice as part of their analysis.
Meanwhile, Prof Kirsten Zickfeld – a professor of climate science at Simon Fraser University – discussed the global temperature response to CDR. She simulated 100GtCO2 of CDR from the atmosphere and calculated how atmospheric CO2 levels changed as the Earth system re-equilibrates.
She then modelled how the temperature of the planet would change in response. Comparing 100GtCO2 of CDR with a simple 100GtCO2 reduction in global emissions, she found that they probably do not have equivalent effects on global temperatures.
However, she says that due to the uncertainty in the models, it is unclear whether carbon removal drives a greater or smaller change in global temperatures than the same amount of reduced CO2 emissions. (Zickfeld explains more about this “asymmetrical” response in a Carbon Brief guest post from 2021.)
In a separate session, Dr Morgan Edwards, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, talked about the risks of relying on uncertain CDR technologies in climate policy.
Edwards noted how difficult it is to predict the uptake of CDR over the coming century and explained the dangers of scenarios in which politicians rely on high CDR deployment, only for its rollout to be much lower than expected. She concluded that the most robust strategy is “planning for the worst and hoping for the best”.
Finally, Tabea Dorndorf, a doctoral researcher at Potsdam Institute for climate impact research, discussed the relative advantages and disadvantages of biochar, BECCS, DACCS and enhanced rock weathering. She explained that in a “middle of the road” scenario, it is likely that BECCS will be the biggest player, due to its higher carbon and biomass efficiency.
What are the potential problems with CO2 removal?
One of the main concerns around CDR is that promoting negative emissions technologies might draw attention away from the need to reduce emissions – a phenomenon known as “mitigation deterrence”.
The final day of the conference addressed this concern in a plenary session called, “How do we ensure CDR supports emission reductions instead of slowing them?”, chaired by Dr Holly Buck – an assistant professor from the University at Buffalo.
To open the session, Buck invited the conference attendees to fill in a poll, asking how concerned they are that CDR could slow down emissions reductions, and how concerned they are that mitigation deterrence could slow down CDR development.
The results, shown below, show that conference attendees were generally more concerned about the former than the latter.
The panel agreed unanimously that CDR is not a substitute for cutting emissions and that it should only be used for hard-to-abate or “residual” emissions.
Dr Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at the financial technology company Stripe, warned that if society does not cut emissions, even a “wildly successful” CDR effort will still only reduce global warming from 2.7C to 2.6C by 2100, so mitigation is still crucial. (Haufather is also a climate science contributor for Carbon Brief.)
He added that mitigation deterrence in private companies is one of the main problems with CDR, explaining that it is almost always cheaper for companies to buy a carbon offset than to take action to reduce their own emissions, saying that the low price of CDR offsets do not reflect their true value. (See Carbon Brief’s special series for more on carbon offsets.)
This means that companies are more likely to buy CDR offsets than decarbonise their own industries, Hausfather said, warning that this “lets companies off the hook” on reducing their own emissions.
He told the conference that to correct for this, governments need to “play a much more active role” in regulation.
Hausfather also argued that “in a world in which CDR didn’t exist, global emissions would not be much different,” saying that in his view, the reason people are emitting today is not because they are banking on CDR, but because mitigation is too expensive.
He said there has been plenty of “much-needed” criticism of carbon offsets, highlighting an investigation into Verra carbon offsets, which found that more than 90% are “worthless”.
However, he noted that part of the response to criticism has been a “large-scale retreat by companies” of all types of offsets – including those which are “good”. He said that the negative emissions community needs to be clear about what companies should do, as well as what they shouldn’t.
Dr Nils Markusson – a senior lecturer at Lancaster University’s environment centre – shared his worry that CDR gives governments and companies a reason to delay or avoid decarbonising their economies.
He called it “suspicious” that governments and companies seem “very optimistic about CDR while very pessimistic about mitigation”. He warned that “CDR optimism sits very comfortably alongside a lack of ambition for phasing out fossil fuels” and called it “a way of avoiding politics”.
Dr Sara Nawaz, a researcher at the University of Oxford, shared concerns that companies are responsible for defining their own residual emissions and could define them in the way that best suits them.
Nawaz also noted the danger that CDR could lead to “competition with other resources that are needed for mitigation, for example land, water and energy”. She also told the conference that CDR can “bake in” an “equivalence” between CO2 emissions and removals that may not exist.
Hausfather said that the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) – a “corporate climate action organisation” have “got the framework right” by suggesting separate emissions and removals targets. (The SBTi recently got into hot water over its stance on carbon credits.)
Hausfather also highlighted the problem of greenwashing, telling that audience that he worried that companies would spend some money implementing some CDR, but then spend vast amounts more money publicising it.
Hausfather also noted the tendency for models to be over reliant on CDR. He explained that in many model simulations, global temperatures overshoot key thresholds early in the century and then CDR is used to bring temperature back down later in the century. Models are “far too cavalier about overshoot”, he said.
What are the next steps for CO2 removal?
In the penultimate plenary session of the conference, Prof Sabine Fuss from the Mercator Institute presented the initial stages of a “systematic review ecosystem on CDR”.
She explained that there has been “exponential growth” in literature on CDR, with some 23,000 papers included in the latest IPCC assessment cycle alone.
Hundreds of experts – including many scientists in the conference room – are working to synthesise this literature, Fuss said. She explained that the team has already grouped the studies into “clusters” of different CDR methods and developed a shared protocol so that methods and definitions are consistent across the groups.
For each cluster, an expert-led review team will work to produce an “in-depth paper”, Fuss said. A few group leads presented the early stages of their work.
Mijndert Van der Spek – an associate professor at Heriot Watt University and lead of the DAC group, explained that they “only” have 800 papers to review. Meanwhile, Prof Claudia Kammann, a researcher at Hochschule Geisenheim University, said her team on biochar had 38,000 papers to work with.
There are around 2,000 papers on BECCS to review and more than 2,000 for a cross-cutting topic on “monitoring, reporting and verification”, the respective leads of these teams said.
Dr Finn Muller-Hansen is a researcher at the Mercator research institute and head of a cross-cutting group on public perceptions to CDR. He explained that most of the 165 papers in this area of research are focused on western countries. Most studies showed low awareness of CDR and mixed or positive attitudes towards different methods, he found.
He also outlined the main factors that affect peoples’ opinions of CDR, including the perceived “naturalness” of the method, trust in institutions and perceived risks and benefits of each method.
In the final session of the conference, former Conservative MP and chair of the COP26 climate summit Alok Sharma addressed the attendees. He said that “governments are not acting quickly enough” to tackle CO2 emissions, adding:
“I think that we need to be doing everything very quickly. I don’t think there is some sort of divide between trying to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and doing more in terms of renewables…The pace isn’t fast enough.”
Film director and producer Leila Conners also spoke to conference attendees about her upcoming documentary Legion 44, which focuses on CDR technologies.
This is part of her film trilogy that also included the 11th Hour, a documentary featuring actor Leonardo DiCaprio.
Speaking to Carbon Brief about the range of discussions at the four-day conference, Dr Steve Smith said the discourse has changed since the first negative CO2 emissions conference in 2018. He told Carbon Brief:
“There’s a wider range of methods being looked at and a broader range of disciplines being brought to bear to look at this issue…Policymakers in particular are starting to move on this issue.”
Smith noted that in future, countries “may well need a lot of carbon removal as well as cutting emissions”. He added:
“For me, it’s not really emphasising just the trees or just the technologies. But we have a range of options and we should be exploring all of them at the moment.”
The next negative CO2 emissions conference will be held in Vienna, Austria in 2026.
The post Negative emissions: Scientists debate role of CO2 removal in tackling climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Negative emissions: Scientists debate role of CO2 removal in tackling climate change
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits