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
China and India have declined to back any of their old United Nations carbon credit projects seeking to sell offsets under the new UN market, driving a cull of nearly three-quarters of applicants, analysis of official data shows.
Only 415 out of more than 1,500 projects and programmes hoping to move from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to the new carbon market set up under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement won the approval of their host governments by the 30 June deadline – a crucial step in transitioning them.
The two Asian giants, home to two-thirds of all applicants, account for the bulk of the exclusions. Brazil, the other heavyweight of the CDM era, took the opposite path, approving nearly all of its projects in a last-minute rush that leaves it with the largest number of activities still in the running to sell credits under the new mechanism.
Carbon market watchers have long regarded the CDM, set up under the Kyoto Protocol which has now been largely replaced by the Paris Agreement, as largely discredited for failing to drive real emission cuts. They also warned that letting its projects live on could dent confidence in the mechanism’s successor.
-
EU carbon credits could supercharge world’s clean cooking push, France says
The country’s top climate envoy says he discussed using cookstove carbon credits with TotalEnergies, which is working to expand the use of LPG cooking in Africa
If all projects seeking transition had been successful, they could have flooded the market with up to more than 900 million credits generated with largely outdated rules, according to UN estimates. One credit is equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) and 900 million tonnes is similar to Japan’s annual emissions.
‘New era’
Injy Johnstone, senior research fellow at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, said the failure of most projects to clear the hurdle sent a significant signal that carbon trading had entered a new era. “The system is trying to remove some of the hot air that had inflated it in the past,” she told Climate Home News.
“The lack of transition is the biggest contribution that Article 6 has made to climate yet,” she added, arguing that leaving “zombie credits” in the market creates confusion, especially for buyers that might not realise these units have lost their value.
Among the schemes that failed to win government approval are nine programmes promoted by fossil fuel companies over a decade ago to subsidise the construction of gas plants in the Global South, which Climate Home News has previously reported on.
Fossil fuel firms seek UN carbon market cash for old gas plants
But one of them, supporting the Ressano Garcia gas plant in Mozambique, could still profit from the new market after the country’s government granted its approval on deadline day itself.
Brazil leads projects transition
Established in 1997 under the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM allowed rich countries to meet part of their climate obligations by financing emission-cutting projects in poorer ones. It drew widespread criticism over its patchy human rights record and for failing to deliver promised climate benefits. Backers of the Article 6.4 market say it is a higher-integrity successor.
CDM projects were given a route back into the new mechanism under certain conditions at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, when governments agreed the rules for the Paris Agreement market.
Project developers had until the end of 2023 to apply and host governments were originally given until the end of 2025 to grant approval. But, after requests from many developing countries for an extension, at COP30 in Belém countries agreed to push the deadline back six months to the end of June.
Brazil was the single largest beneficiary of the decision, with all of its 92 approvals coming during the extension window. Hydropower plants, landfill gas schemes and wind farms make up the bulk of the South American country’s surviving portfolio, and hydro is the single most common project type in the global transition pipeline.
Peru greenlit the move of nearly a dozen hydropower plants, Thailand backed a batch of biogas and waste-to-energy schemes, and Mexico squeezed all of its approvals – including a controversial industrial gas project – into the final week. African nations including Zambia, Malawi and Ethiopia backed programmes aiming to switch households to cleaner cooking stoves, which have the potential to generate millions of offsets and are set to be the biggest source of credits among the surviving projects.
Long way from selling credits
Securing government support does not mean a scheme can now automatically sell credits under the Article 6 mechanism. Developers are required to submit additional documentation by the end of 2026 demonstrating that their programmes respect the mechanism’s stricter rules on environmental and social safeguards and on the risk of emission cuts being reversed. The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, the mechanism’s regulator, has the final say on which projects are allowed into the market.
Those that make it through can sell credits for emission reductions achieved between 2021 and 2025 under the old CDM methodologies, with some adjustments aimed at preventing the creation of excess credits not backed by real emission cuts. For reductions achieved from 2026 onwards, projects will need to switch to new methodologies, which the regulator is currently developing.
So far, 30 programmes have completed the process, and only two cookstove projects in Myanmar have been formally approved to issue credits.
Civil society groups have called for an investigation into the activities in Myanmar over its ties to Myanmar’s military junta – which the UN says is guilty of human rights abuses – and allegations of “massively” overstating its climate impact.
The company behind the scheme said its engagement with authorities “should not be interpreted as political endorsement” of the junta, while disputing the calculations underpinning the claim that too many credits had been issued.
The post Most “zombie credits” locked out of new UN carbon market after China and India snub appeared first on Climate Home News.
Most “zombie credits” locked out of new UN carbon market after China and India snub
Climate Change
Debriefed 17 July 2026: UK ‘firewave’ | Fossil-fuelled heat deaths | London’s Natural History Museum spotlights climate
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Heat and firewaves
‘FIREWAVE’: Wildfires ravaged Europe and North America this week. France utilised water-dumping planes collecting from the Seine to contain a fire in the Fontainebleau forest near Paris, according to the Associated Press. The Financial Times reported that the UK has had “25 non-consecutive days with temperatures of 30C or more, including nine days above 34C”, creating a “firewave” and putting pressure on emergency services. Meanwhile, an “orange haze from Canada wildfires” could be “seen in Ontario and northern US”, said BBC News.
‘NEW NORMAL’: Climate events previously seen as extreme are becoming the “new ‘normal’”, said the Met Office, in a report on the UK’s climate. While last year was the UK’s hottest on record, rising temperatures mean it is expected to be surpassed in the next few years, reported Reuters. Liz Bentley, head of the Royal Meteorological Society, told the Guardian that “climate change has been described by scientists for many years but is now increasingly being felt by the UK population in their own homes and communities”.
Around the world
- ELECTRIFYING PUSH: The European Commission has announced a target for electricity to account for 46% of energy consumption across the bloc by 2040, reported Carbon Pulse. The commission has also made plans to adapt its emissions trading system to “bring relief to industry”, it said.
- FALLING OIL: The International Energy Agency said that global oil demand is expected to decline this year for the first time since 2020, reported the Associated Press.
- US ROLLBACKS: Trump cuts to clean energy support “led to the cancellation or delay of $83bn in investment across hundreds of projects”, reported Reuters. The Trump administration has also changed environmental law to allow development in the habitats of endangered species, according to CNN.
- BURNHAM BEGINS: Incoming UK prime minister Andy Burnham is preparing to announce new North Sea drilling “within days of taking office”, said Bloomberg. Carbon Brief looked at 28 statements that Burnham has made about climate change and fossil fuels.
- DRY JULY: Drought in Uganda led to significant crop losses and at least 16 deaths from starvation, said BBC News.
- ON AI: Australia planned to implement restrictions on energy and water usage for datacentres “amid [an] AI boom”, said the New York Times.
38%
The drop in Brazilian Amazon deforestation in the first half of 2026, compared to last year, reported Al Jazeera.
Latest climate research
- The area of land burned by wildfires in Africa each year has reduced due to a shrinking dry season | Geophysical Research Letters
- Most people do not distinguish between climate adaptation and mitigation when thinking about tackling climate change | Climate Outreach
- An “effort-sharing framework” has been developed to support progress towards the Paris Agreement | npj Climate Action
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Carbon Brief explained how more than 1,000 heat-related deaths in England and Wales during May and June were attributed to climate change, accounting for almost half of all heat-related deaths experienced during those months. The article also unpacked the different methods for estimating heat deaths around the world.
Spotlight
Natural History Museum exhibits climate change
This week, Carbon Brief interviews Meaghan Macdonald, senior project and programme manager for London’s Natural History Museum, about their first permanent climate-themed exhibition, Fixing Our Broken Planet.
Carbon Brief: Why are programmes such as Fixing Our Broken Planet so important?
Meaghan Macdonald: One of the main things we’re trying to achieve with Fixing Our Broken Planet is to place the museum as a convener of conversations around the planetary emergency…trying to bring together the different groups of people who need to be involved in this conversation in order to work together to find a solution.
And we find that a lot of the people who come into the gallery weren’t necessarily coming here to see it; they come across it, which is a really great way to engage people who may not have been engaged in that discussion previously.
CB: How does the exhibition engage and inspire visitors?
MM: A driving force for this exhibition is that you are dealing with a subject matter that can be quite disheartening, and one of the things that we were very careful about is to try to make sure that woven throughout the scientific data… is a sense of hope… to enable people to feel empowered to make a difference.
We were able to do things like our “what you can do” labels, which give an example that people can take away with them. We also have “conversation starters”, which is a digital screen that asks people a series of questions related to the planetary emergency. Things like: “Should we mine the deep sea to power the green economy?”…And there’s no right or wrong answer.
We [also] set out very specifically to…forefront the science that’s happening here. We know from multiple studies from thinktanks and organisations that people actually trust our scientists the most.
CB: The museum has set out a goal to “create advocates for the planet”. What does this mean? How does it relate to the exhibition and the museum’s wider climate action?
MM: The aim of the museum is to get to a place where both people and the planet thrive. Being a library of the natural world, it is our duty to be standing up for it and to help people find their way, fighting for nature’s side.
In order to create those advocates, the aim of the [exhibition] and the wider advocacy programmes at the museum is to try to find ways to bring all these people [individuals, policymakers, industry, scientists] together.
We have the wider programme with Fixing Our Broken Planet. We have Generation Hope…a free graphic panel version of our display in the gallery that we have been able to get into a number of venues in Bangalore…the very long-standing and beloved wildlife photographer of the year [exhibition]…our urban nature movement…[and] an initiative that we are doing with the Department for Education called the National Education Nature Park.
Watch, read, listen
STUBBORN HOPE: For the Conversation, climate scientist Prof Peter Stott argued that researchers need to “talk more about the very worst-case scenarios” and the possibility for action.
EXTREME: Vox’s the Gray Area podcast spoke to New York Times journalist David Wallace-Wells about the possibility of a “Godzilla” El Niño.
RESPONSIBILITY: For Climate Home News, two researchers from the Center for International Environmental Law explored how “major emitting countries knew of climate risks decades earlier than claimed”.
Coming up
- 13-31 July: Meeting of the International Seabed Authority assembly and council, Kingston, Jamaica
- 17-19 July: 3rd International Conference on Environment and Sustainable Development, London
- 19 July: Presidential election, São Tomé and Príncipe
Pick of the jobs
- Zero Carbon Analytics, research lead | Salary: Unknown. Location: Remote
- Met Office, ocean climate scientific manager | Salary: £54,515-£58,582. Location: Exeter
- National Trust, land use and nature delivery partner | Salary: £44,499. Location: Newcastle or York
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post Debriefed 17 July 2026: UK ‘firewave’ | Fossil-fuelled heat deaths | London’s Natural History Museum spotlights climate appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Recent weeks have seen a flurry of reports from public health authorities and scientists that estimate the deaths caused by Europe’s record-breaking summer heatwaves.
In France, the national public health agency reported 2,025 excess deaths over the week where the heatwave peaked in June.
Authorities in Germany and Netherlands put the excess death toll during the same seven-day period at 5,753 and 533, respectively.
An analysis from climate scientists in Carbon Brief found that France saw more than 2,700 heat-related deaths over 17 days in June.
Separate research estimated there had been 2,700 heat-related deaths in the UK’s May and June heatwaves – 42% of which had been caused by human-caused climate change.
There are a number of methods for how academics and governments tally deaths caused by extreme heat, each with their own advantages and drawbacks.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at the different ways scientists and public health authorities have calculated the death toll of Europe’s record-breaking summer heat.
- How established is the science of calculating heat deaths?
- What are the different approaches to counting heat deaths?
- What do the latest figures show for Europe’s May and June heatwaves?
- What are the pros and cons of the ‘excess deaths’ method?
- What are the pros and cons of the ‘statistical modelling’ method?
How established is the science of calculating heat deaths?
Economists and epidemiologists have been studying the relationship between heat and mortality for nearly a century.
A pioneering study published in 1923 by geographer Ellsworth Huntington and economist Margaret Justin that looked at mortality data for New York City over 1882-88 found that deaths increased rapidly as temperatures rose above 17C.
As global temperatures have risen in response to human-caused carbon emissions, scientists have increasingly sought to understand how warming could impact mortality.
The study of mortality caused by specific heatwave events dates back a few decades, with a 1995 heatwave in Chicago among the earliest events to be studied in detail.
Over the past decade, a growing number of studies have gone a step further, by estimating the number of deaths caused by a specific heatwave event and then attributing a percentage or number of those deaths to human-caused climate change.
Carbon Brief covered the first study of this type, which was published in Environmental Research Letters in 2016 and focused on a 2003 summer heatwave that caused tens of thousands of deaths across Europe.
The study estimated that 506 of the 735 summer fatalities in Paris and 64 of the 315 in London were a result of human influence on the climate.
More recently, a study in Climatic Change found that 27% of deaths in a 2018 heatwave in Zurich, Switzerland were linked to human-caused climate change and a paper in Science Advances estimated that 11-15% of deaths in a 2021 heatwave in British Columbia were attributable to global warming.
Dr Christopher Callahan, assistant professor at the O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, tells Carbon Brief this type of “two-step” study has “really exploded” in recent years:
“It is really only in the last five to 10 years that we have seen this, partly because it does require interdisciplinary expertise. You need people who know how to run the epidemiological models and you need a climate analysis of the counterfactual [world] without climate change, which is its own effort.”
What are the different approaches to counting heat deaths?
A central challenge in estimating deaths from a heatwave is that heat is rarely recorded as the primary cause of death on death certificates.
However, exposure to high temperatures has wide-ranging effects on the human body, including the strain of keeping cool. This effort places pressure on the heart and kidneys.
As a result, heat extremes can worsen health risks from chronic conditions and cause acute kidney injury. Researchers have linked heat to increased mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as dementia and Alzheimer’s.
As a result, public health authorities and scientists cannot depend on death certificates for a full count of heat-related deaths. They instead estimate heat deaths using a number of different approaches, each with assumptions baked into their calculations.
Dr Garyfallos Konstantinoudis, who researches methods for calculating excess mortality due to extreme events at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College, tells Carbon Brief there is “no ground truth” when it comes to tallying heat-related deaths:
“We don’t know what the heat-related deaths are, so we rely on different models to describe the picture.”
This makes the study of deaths from heatwaves similar to those from air pollution, he says:
“This sort of health-impact assessment has been done for years on studies related to deaths from air pollution, which have the same problem. Air pollution, until very recently, was not recorded on death certificates.
“[However], for air pollution, the [scientific] literature is much larger, so no one questions that air pollution is toxic and kills. This sort of messaging for heat is more recent.”
There are, broadly speaking, two approaches to calculating deaths during a heatwave.
The first involves counting the number of excess deaths relative to a period in the past.
This method – often referred to as an “excess deaths” approach – looks at how many people died during a particular time period compared to a baseline period where there was no heatwave.
To do this, public health authorities and researchers rely on official death figures reported by country authorities.
The heat death tolls published in recent weeks by public health agencies in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands relied on this approach.
(For more, see: What are the pros and cons of the ‘excess deaths’ method?)
The second method uses long-term mortality data to understand the statistical relationship between temperature and mortality in a given place. The model that emerges can be used to infer the number of deaths from a heatwave in that place.
In a rapid analysis published this week, researchers at Imperial College London, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the Met Office used this approach to estimate that the May and June heatwaves in the UK caused the deaths of 2,700 people.
Dr Callahan – working with Prof Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University – used this method to estimate that more than 2,700 people had died in France over a 17-day period in June in an analysis for Carbon Brief.
(For more: see: What are the pros and cons of the ‘statistical modelling’ method?)
The majority of the figures released in the wake of Europe’s June heatwave have relied on these two methods.
There is a third way to calculate heat deaths, which is to look at official counts of deaths attributed on death certificates to heatstroke.
Callahan tells Carbon Brief that the “death-certificate coding” appears to have fallen out of favour in Europe – which he says is a “smart move” given that it does not provide a “full accounting”.
Nevertheless, some public health authorities are still using this method. For example, in the wake of the heatwave in the US earlier this month, public health data showed 29 people in New Jersey and three people in New York had died from “heat-related illnesses”.
Scientists tell Carbon Brief the excess deaths and statistical modelling approaches both have advantages and drawbacks. These are explored below.
What do the latest figures show for Europe’s May and June heatwaves?
The table below shows the death numbers that have been reported by governments and researchers for Europe’s May and June heatwaves, including the approach used to reach the figures.
It suggests that multiple countries in Europe experienced more than 1,000 heat-related deaths during the late June heatwave, with authorities in Germany counting more than 5,000.
Meanwhile, the EuroMoMo mortality monitoring system estimated there were more than 10,500 excess deaths across 27 countries during the June heatwave.
| Reported | Source | Country / region | Dates | Days | Deaths | Link | Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28/06/2026 | Public Health France | France | 22-27 June | 6 | 1,000 | santepubliquefrance.fr | Excess deaths |
| 29/06/2026 | World Health Organization | Europe | 21-28 June | 8 | 1,300 | x.com/DrTedros/status | Excess deaths |
| 01/07/2026 | Carlos III Health Institute (MoMo) | Spain | 1-30 June | 30 | 1,033 | dw.com | Excess deaths (all-cause and temperature-attributable) |
| 02/07/2026 | National Institute for Public Health and the Environment | Netherlands | 22-28 June | 7 | 480 | rivm.nl | Excess deaths |
| 03/07/2026 | Public Health France | France | 22-28 June | 7 | 2,025 | santepubliquefrance.fr | Excess deaths |
| 07/07/2026 | Chris Callahan/Andrew Dessler | France | 12-29 June | 18 | 2,766 | carbonbrief.org | Statistical modelling |
| 08/07/2026 | Chris Callahan | Europe | 15-28 June | 14 | 13,975 | zenodo.org | Statistical modelling |
| 08/07/2026 | Sciensano | Belgium | 18 June – 1 July | 14 | 1,747 | brusselstimes.com | Excess deaths |
| 09/07/2026 | Robert Koch Institute | Germany | 22-28 June | 7 | 5,120 | rki.de | Statistical modelling |
| 13/07/2026 | Met Office/LSHTM/Imperial | England and Wales | 22-27 June | 6 | 2,183 | drive.google.com | Statistical modelling |
| 13/07/2026 | Met Office/LSHTM/Imperial | England and Wales | 24-26 May | 3 | 553 | drive.google.com | Statistical modelling |
| 13/07/2026 | EURO Mo/Mo | 27 European countries | 22-28 June | 7 | 10,650 | reuters.com | Excess deaths |
| 07/07/2025 | National Institute for Public Health and the Environment | Netherlands | 22-28 June | 7 | 577 | archive.ph | Excess deaths |
| 14/07/2026 | Germany Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) | Germany | 22-28 June | 7 | 5,753 | destatis.de | Excess deaths |
In most instances, Carbon Brief has linked to the figures published by public health authorities, where numbers were first reported. In some instances, figures were released on dashboards or webpages that are updated weekly. In these cases, Carbon Brief has linked to media reports or archived web content.
What are the pros and cons of the ‘excess deaths’ method?
The excess deaths approach looks at how many more people died during a particular time period compared to a baseline period of the same length.
For instance, on 14 July, Germany’s federal statistics agency, Destatis, published figures showing Germany saw 32% more deaths than the average in the week of 22-28 June, which was dominated by the heatwave.
Specifically, the agency said that 23,932 deaths had been recorded that week, compared to an average of 18,179 in that calendar week across the years 2022-25.
This suggests there were 5,753 excess deaths during the heatwave week. (This was a slight increase from preliminary Destatis figures released a week earlier, covered by Bloomberg.)
The Netherlands similarly calculates excess deaths by comparing death figures against an average of deaths in a similar period during unspecified “previous years”.
Data published by the country’s National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) shows that, during the week of 22-28 June, an estimated 3,626 people died in total in the northern European country.
This is 577 more deaths than the 3,049 expected at that time of year, it said. (This is a slight revision upwards from the 480 excess deaths reported on 4 July by NL Times based on preliminary figures from NVIM.)
Callahan says that the excess deaths approach has the benefit of being rapid and relatively uncomplicated:
“It is something that public health authorities can put out fairly quickly without having to run a fancy model and do coding like the academic scientists do. It is a short-term, high-impact, rapid estimate of mortality.”
The drawback to the approach is that it is impossible to decipher what percentage of these “all-mortality” excess deaths are, in fact, heat-related.
Imperial College’s Konstantinoudis notes that the public often “feels more comfortable” with the excess deaths approach over the statistical modelling approach because the data it is using – the official death numbers – is based on real-world data.
However, he stresses that excess deaths figures are based on a series of assumptions, including the reference period picked by researchers and how the numbers are interpreted.
Statisticians and researchers have to make a series of decisions, including what period to use as a comparative baseline. For example, the baseline period could be the week before a heatwave, the same week a year before – or an average of the same week across multiple years in the past. If averaging mortality of a similar period across a number of previous years, they must decide how much “weight”, or influence, each year should have.
They must also decide how to account for spikes in deaths during the Covid-19 pandemic years, as well as the gradual rise in average temperatures due to global warming.
During the pandemic, many governments and the World Health Organization (WHO) used the excess deaths approach to count deaths. The WHO said this metric was more “comparable” and “objective” than relying on national reports of Covid-19 deaths, given that different countries used different criteria for this classification.
A notable example of how assumptions can skew excess death figures came during this period, when the WHO estimated in 2022 that Germany had seen 195,000 excess deaths over two years of pandemic.
However, after statisticians and epidemiologists pointed out the assumptions in the model were not suited to Germany’s demographics, the WHO retracted the figure and eventually reduced it to 122,000 and then later to 102,000.
Konstantinoudis explains:
“Covid taught us that it is complicated. Depending on the different assumptions used in the excess-mortality approach, you get different results…There is a scientific basis, but we should acknowledge the assumptions.”
What are the pros and cons of the ‘statistical modelling’ method?
In the statistical modelling approach, researchers use models to determine the specific relationship between mortality and temperature for a particular location and then apply it to temperatures observed during a heatwave.
This allows them to estimate the overall number of deaths that were caused by a heatwave.
Previous research has revealed that, in most places of the world, there is a U-shaped response of mortality to temperature – where deaths increase rapidly in cold or hot conditions as daily maximum temperatures depart further from an “optimum temperature”.
For example, research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2025 found that mortality rates in France rise as daily maximum temperatures move away from approximately 20C. This is shown in the chart below.
Indiana University’s Callahan say this approach allows scientists to “formally establish a relationship between the temperature and the mortality”, adding:
“If you do these calculations right, you can credibly say your entire estimate of mortality is heat-related.”
Prof Antonio Gasparrini, biostatistician and epidemiologist at LSHTM, explains the method relies on “timeseries models that apply relatively sophisticated statistical methods in which you ‘smooth’ trends occurring in time, so you control for long-term trends and seasonality”.
He says that these models also allow researchers to “remove” trends affecting mortality that are unrelated to heat – for instance, the impacts of the pandemic. They can also “add” other information, such as around how air pollution combines with heat to threaten vulnerable populations.
Gasparrini adds:
“What statistical modelling can bring is that it is more refined. It can link specific temperatures to specific impacts rather than just looking at the event [in the whole]. And also, it can be localised – [data] can be stratified at a fine scale and we can look at impacts at different scales.
“So, it is more informative. But, at the same time, of course, it’s based on more assumptions than the [excess deaths approach] and, of course, needs to be checked and compared.”
The approach depends on a number of judgment calls from scientists and statisticians, including the years picked to underpin the model and how to capture the lag in deaths in the days and weeks after a heatwave event.
They must also decide at what threshold to start counting deaths – in other words, whether to count all deaths above the “optimum temperature” or set a higher, more extreme value – and whether and how to account for any adaptation to heat extremes that may have been put in place in the study area.
A benefit of the statistical modelling approach is that it opens the door for being able to attribute a specific number of deaths to human-caused climate change.
By applying the temperature-mortality curve to both the temperatures of the recent heatwave and a counterfactual world without climate change, scientists can estimate what proportion of estimated deaths only occurred because the world is warming.
For instance, Imperial College, LSHTM and Met Office researchers found that 59% and 38% of heat-related deaths in the UK’s May and June heatwaves, respectively, could be attributed to climate change. Their findings are shown in the chart below.
Some climate-sceptic commentators have argued that modelled estimates are hypotheses and should therefore be treated with caution.
On 13 July, climate-sceptic news website GB News covered a blog post by Oxford academics that argued the figure that 2,700 people had died in the UK’s May and June heatwaves was not reflected in the provisional “all-mortality” data put out by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS). Quoting the blog, GB News said:
“Modelling tells us nothing. Models explore possibilities; surveillance tells us what happened. When the two disagree, our instinct should be to investigate the data rather than simply trust the model.”
However, Imperial’s Konstantinoudis – who worked on the models behind the 2,700 figure – says it is important to await the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA)’s annual heat mortality report before arriving at any conclusions. He explains:
“While we are entirely clear that our current findings are modelled estimates, this methodology has consistently delivered comparable results to the UKHSA’s own official analyses of observed deaths for past heat events.”
(The UKHSA report will include updated figures and estimate excess deaths from heat based on specific periods of heat in different regions, whereas the provisional ONS figures cover all national deaths during a full-week period.)
Konstantinoudis says both the excess deaths and statistical modelling approaches have been the subject of extensive peer-reviewed scientific study and can provide a “holistic view of what is happening” when used together.
Studies that have compared statistical modelling approaches for estimating heatwave deaths with excess death figures in the UK have found they yield broadly similar results.
The post Q&A: Europe’s May and June heatwave deaths – and how they were counted appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: Europe’s May and June heatwave deaths – and how they were counted
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测