A number of technologies offered to solve this problem are combined under the general name “carbon dioxide removal” or CDR (carbon dioxide removal). Analysts say they are trying to filter out enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to significantly impact climate change will require hundreds of billions of dollars. It’s astronomically expensive, but it’s increasingly talked about because no one sees any other real alternative.

Detail

The U.S. would need to spend about $100 billion a year on CDR to reach a level that would help the country meet its climate goals, according to estimates from research firm Rhodium Group. Most of these funds should come in the form of support programs such as tax credits and purchasing programs. This issue has become increasingly talked about, especially as the United States continues to produce record amounts of oil and gas.

By comparison, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2021 provides $369 billion for clean energy incentives; This is the country’s largest climate policy investment to date. At the same time, according to analysts, According to the report, $100 billion in annual government spending is too much to spend on new technologies that have not yet been proven at scale.. This may turn out to be not enough for the desired efficiency.

The goal set by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to achieve zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. This is necessary to stop the increase in average global temperature and prevent it from exceeding the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit compared to before the industrial revolution.

Crossing this threshold means that climate-related disasters such as extreme heat, sea level rise and biodiversity loss will significantly worsen, possibly outpacing human ability to adapt to these changes in the world’s most vulnerable regions. The 1.5 degree target was set by the Paris Agreement almost a decade ago in 2015, but greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.

• The US is already investing heavily in CO capture₂Although the only way to stop climate change and achieve the goals set by the Paris Agreement is to end dependence on fossil fuels.
• The bipartisan Infrastructure Act of 2021 would provide $3.5 billion to build new carbon capture hubs in the United States.
• Large companies including Microsoft and Amazon are also paying startups to capture some of their emissions.
• And the fossil fuel industry has embraced this technology, even using it to promote so-called greener oil in the market.

Frankly, this is still not enough.

The report states: By 2050, the US will need capacity to absorb one gigaton of CO2₂reach zero emissions. This means a huge amount of carbon dioxide that needs to be captured; This equates to roughly 20 percent of the country’s entire carbon footprint. The country’s current capabilities to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are small compared to what is desired – so far calculated in single-digit megatonnes.

The report highlights three different tactics to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere:

• Natural methods relying on plants, soil and ocean to absorb CO2₂;
• Creation of machines that capture carbon dioxide;
• Hybrid technologies that use both natural and engineered processes.

All three strategies present us with different challenges.

By far the most popular nature-focused tactic was planting trees, but it wasn’t very successful. A growing body of research and analysis shows that offsetting emissions through forestry projects has largely failed. For example, trees generally do not survive long enough to have a significant impact on CO emissions.₂ to the atmosphere

Plants that absorb carbon dioxide from the air or seawater should perform better. However, the large amount of energy they use makes these devices inefficient and prohibitively expensive. They need to be built in huge quantities all over the world. Filter a ton of CO₂ over $600 by air. Multiply that amount by one gigaton (one billion metric tons) and you have costs in the hundreds of billions of dollars..

I think there is a misleading level of confidence in this report. It’s too early to scale up any of these right now [технологій]. They need more work,
– says Romm.

There are many limitations to the most studied CDR techniques, including tree planting and CO capture technologies.₂. Romm believes the money would be better spent on research into other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The two most urgent things we need to do right now are stop deforestation and stop CO.”₂ “into the air”says.

When this happens, it may be beneficial to direct resources towards carbon sequestration, which will help tackle the problem of our past emissions. But it begs the question: Why put a Band-Aid on a problem if we can’t stop the bleeding?