Carbon dioxide removal#Direct air capture with carbon sequestration (DACCS)

{{carbon cycle|Carbon dioxide}}

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined by the IPCC as: "Anthropogenic activities removing {{CO2}} from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture and storage, but excludes natural {{CO2}} uptake not directly caused by human activities."{{rp|2221}}

Synonyms for CDR include greenhouse gas removal (GGR),{{Cite web |title=Greenhouse Gas Removal |url=https://netzeroclimate.org/greenhouse-gas-removal/ |access-date=2023-03-29 |website=Net Zero Climate |language=en-GB}} negative emissions technology, and carbon removal.{{Cite journal |last1=Mulligan |first1=James |last2=Ellison |first2=Gretchen |last3=Levin |first3=Kelly |last4=Lebling |first4=Katie |last5=Rudee |first5=Alex |last6=Leslie-Bole |first6=Haley |date=2023-03-17 |title=6 Ways to Remove Carbon Pollution from the Atmosphere |url=https://www.wri.org/insights/6-ways-remove-carbon-pollution-sky |journal=World Resources Institute |language=en}} Technologies have been proposed for removing non-{{CO2}} greenhouse gases such as methane from the atmosphere,{{Cite journal |last1=Jackson |first1=Robert B. |last2=Abernethy |first2=Sam |last3=Canadell |first3=Josep G. |last4=Cargnello |first4=Matteo |last5=Davis |first5=Steven J. |last6=Féron |first6=Sarah |last7=Fuss |first7=Sabine |last8=Heyer |first8=Alexander J. |last9=Hong |first9=Chaopeng |last10=Jones |first10=Chris D. |last11=Damon Matthews |first11=H. |last12=O'Connor |first12=Fiona M. |last13=Pisciotta |first13=Maxwell |last14=Rhoda |first14=Hannah M. |last15=de Richter |first15=Renaud |date=2021-11-15 |title=Atmospheric methane removal: a research agenda |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences |language=en |volume=379 |issue=2210 |pages=20200454 |doi=10.1098/rsta.2020.0454 |issn=1364-503X |pmc=8473948 |pmid=34565221|bibcode=2021RSPTA.37900454J }} but only carbon dioxide is currently feasible to remove at scale. Therefore, in most contexts, greenhouse gas removal means carbon dioxide removal.

The term geoengineering (or climate engineering) is sometimes used in the scientific literature for both CDR or SRM (solar radiation management), if the techniques are used at a global scale.IPCC (2022) [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter_01.pdf Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing] in [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA{{rp|6–11}} The terms geoengineering or climate engineering are no longer used in IPCC reports.

CDR methods can be placed in different categories that are based on different criteria:{{rp|114}}

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

CDR can be confused with carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process in which carbon dioxide is collected from point-sources such as gas-fired power plants, whose smokestacks emit {{CO2}} in a concentrated stream. The {{CO2}} is then compressed and sequestered or utilized.{{Cite web |last=Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |title=Glossary — Global Warming of 1.5 °C |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191222064917/https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/ |archive-date=December 22, 2019 |access-date=2020-02-23}} When used to sequester the carbon from a gas-fired power plant, CCS reduces emissions from continued use of the point source, but does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Use of CDR reduces the overall rate at which humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.{{Rp|page=114}} The Earth's surface temperature will stabilize only after global emissions have been reduced to net zero,{{Cite web |title=The evidence is clear: the time for action is now. We can halve emissions by 2030. — IPCC |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ |access-date=2023-04-10}} which will require both aggressive efforts to reduce emissions and deployment of CDR.{{Rp|page=114}} It is not feasible to bring net emissions to zero without CDR as certain types of emissions are technically difficult to eliminate.{{Cite book |author=IPCC |author-link=IPCC |url=https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf |title=Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change |publisher=Cambridge University Press (In Press) |year=2022 |isbn=9781009157926 |editor1-last=Shukla |editor1-first=P.R. |series=Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change |place=Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA |doi=10.1017/9781009157926 |ref={{harvid|IPCC AR6 WG3|2022}} |editor2-last=Skea |editor2-first=J. |editor3-last=Slade |editor3-first=R. |editor4-last=Al Khourdajie |editor4-first=A. |editor5-last=van Diemen |editor5-first=R. |editor6-last=McCollum |editor6-first=D. |editor7-last=Pathak |editor7-first=M. |editor8-last=Some |editor8-first=S. |editor9-last=Vyas |editor9-first=P. |display-editors=4 |editor10-first=R. |editor10-last=Fradera |editor11-first=M. |editor11-last=Belkacemi |editor12-first=A. |editor12-last=Hasija |editor13-first=G. |editor13-last=Lisboa |editor14-first=S. |editor14-last=Luz |editor15-first=J. |editor15-last=Malley}}{{Rp|page=1261}} Emissions that are difficult to eliminate include nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture,{{Rp|page=114}} aviation emissions,{{Rp|page=3}} and some industrial emissions.{{Rp|page=114}} In climate change mitigation strategies, the use of CDR counterbalances those emissions.{{Rp|page=114}}

After net zero emissions have been achieved, CDR could be used to reduce atmospheric {{CO2}} concentrations, which could partially reverse the warming that has already occurred by that date. All emission pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C by the year 2100 assume the use of CDR in combination with emission reductions.Page 4-81, IPCC Sixth Assessment Report Working Group 1, 9/8/21, https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210811070140/https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/|date=August 11, 2021}}Rogelj, J., D. Shindell, K. Jiang, S. Fifita, P. Forster, V. Ginzburg, C. Handa, H. Kheshgi, S. Kobayashi, E. Kriegler, L. Mundaca, R. Séférian, and M.V.Vilariño, 2018: [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/SR15_Chapter_2_LR.pdf Chapter 2: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 °C in the Context of Sustainable Development]. In: [https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty] [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 93-174. {{doi|10.1017/9781009157940.004}}

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

Reliance on large-scale deployment of CDR was regarded in 2018 as a "major risk" to achieving the goal of less than 1.5 °C of warming, given the uncertainties in how quickly CDR can be deployed at scale. Strategies for mitigating climate change that rely less on CDR and more on sustainable use of energy carry less of this risk.{{Cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=K. |last2=Peters |first2=G. |date=2016-10-14 |title=The trouble with negative emissions |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah4567 |url-status=live |journal=Science |language=en |volume=354 |issue=6309 |pages=182–183 |bibcode=2016Sci...354..182A |doi=10.1126/science.aah4567 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=27738161 |s2cid=44896189 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211122075813/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aah4567 |archive-date=November 22, 2021 |access-date=April 28, 2020 |hdl-access=free |hdl=11250/2491451}}

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

CDR is meant to complement efforts in hard-to-abate sectors rather than replace mitigation. Limiting climate change to 1.5 °C and achieving net-zero emissions would entail substantial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere by the mid-century, but how much CDR is needed at country level over time is unclear. Equitable allocations of CDR, in many cases, exceed implied land and carbon storage capacities. Many countries have either insufficient land to contribute an equitable share of global CDR or insufficient geological storage capacity.{{Cite journal |last1=Yang |first1=Pu |last2=Mi |first2=Zhifu |last3=Wei |first3=Yi-Ming |last4=Hanssen |first4=Steef V |last5=Liu |first5=Lan-Cui |last6=Coffman |first6=D'Maris |last7=Sun |first7=Xinlu |last8=Liao |first8=Hua |last9=Yao |first9=Yun-Fei |last10=Kang |first10=Jia-Ning |last11=Wang |first11=Peng-Tao |last12=Davis |first12=Steven J |date=2023-11-06 |title=The global mismatch between equitable carbon dioxide removal liability and capacity |journal=National Science Review |language=en |volume=10 |issue=12 |pages=nwad254 |doi=10.1093/nsr/nwad254 |issn=2095-5138 |pmc=10659237 |pmid=38021166 |doi-access=free}} 50x50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Experts also highlight social and ecological limits for carbon dioxide removal, such as the land area required. For example, the combined land requirements of removal plans as per the global Nationally Determined Contributions in 2023 amounted to 1.2 billion hectares, which is equal to the combined size of global croplands.{{Cite journal |last1=Deprez |first1=Alexandra |last2=Leadley |first2=Paul |last3=Dooley |first3=Kate |last4=Williamson |first4=Phil |last5=Cramer |first5=Wolfgang |last6=Gattuso |first6=Jean-Pierre |last7=Rankovic |first7=Aleksandar |last8=Carlson |first8=Eliot L. |last9=Creutzig |first9=Felix |date=2024-02-02 |title=Sustainability limits needed for CO 2 removal |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adj6171 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=383 |issue=6682 |pages=484–486 |doi=10.1126/science.adj6171 |pmid=38301011 |issn=0036-8075}}

Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass. However, these biological stores are considered volatile carbon sinks as the long-term sequestration cannot be guaranteed. For example, natural events, such as wildfires or disease, economic pressures and changing political priorities can result in the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere.{{Cite web |last=Myles |first=Allen |date=September 2020 |title=The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting |url=https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002083510/https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf |archive-date=October 2, 2020 |access-date=10 December 2021}}

Biomass, such as trees, can be directly stored into the Earth's subsurface.{{Cite journal |date=2008-05-15 |access-date=2023-12-22 |title=Permanent wood sequestration: The Solution to the Global Carbon Dioxide Problem |author=F. Scholz, U. Hasse |journal=ChemSusChem |volume=1 |issue=5 |pages=381–384 |url=https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cssc.200800048 |doi=10.1002/cssc.200800048 |publisher=www.chemsuschem.org|pmid=18702128 |bibcode=2008ChSCh...1..381S |url-access=subscription }} Furthermore, carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere can be stored in the Earth's crust by injecting it into the subsurface, or in the form of insoluble carbonate salts. This is because they are removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it indefinitely and presumably for a considerable duration (thousands to millions of years).

As of 2023, CDR is estimated to remove about 2 gigatons of {{CO2}} per year, almost entirely by low-tech methods like reforestation and the creation of new forests.{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Steve |display-authors=etal |date=2023-01-19 |title=Guest post: The state of 'carbon dioxide removal' in seven charts |url=https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-state-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-in-seven-charts/ |access-date=2023-04-10 |website=Carbon Brief |language=en}} This is equivalent to 4% of the greenhouse gases emitted per year by human activities.{{Rp|page=8}} A 2019 consensus study report by NASEM assessed the potential of all forms of CDR other than ocean fertilization that could be deployed safely and economically using current technologies, and estimated that they could remove up to 10 gigatons of {{CO2}} per year if fully deployed worldwide. In 2018, all analyzed mitigation pathways that would prevent more than 1.5 °C of warming included CDR measures.{{cite web|title=SR15 Technical Summary|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf|access-date=25 July 2019|archive-date=December 20, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220132005/https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_TS_High_Res.pdf|url-status=live}}

Some mitigation pathways propose achieving higher rates of CDR through massive deployment of one technology; however, these pathways assume that hundreds of millions of hectares of cropland are converted to growing biofuel crops. Further research in the areas of direct air capture, geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide, and carbon mineralization could potentially yield technological advancements that make higher rates of CDR economically feasible.

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

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

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

Trees use photosynthesis to absorb carbon dioxide and store the carbon in wood and soils. Afforestation is the establishment of a forest in an area where there was previously no forest.{{Rp|page=1794}} Reforestation is the re-establishment of a forest that has been previously cleared.{{Rp|page=1812}} Forests are vital for human society, animals and plant species. This is because trees keep air clean, regulate the local climate and provide a habitat for numerous species.{{Cite web |date=2021-05-13 |title=Forest Protection & Climate Change: Why Is It Important? |url=https://climatetransform.com/forest-protection-climate-change-why-is-it-important |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210603125847/https://climatetransform.com/forest-protection-climate-change-why-is-it-important/ |archive-date=June 3, 2021 |access-date=2021-05-31 |website=Climate Transform |language=en}}

As trees grow they absorb {{CO2}} from the atmosphere and store it in living biomass, dead organic matter and soils. Afforestation and reforestation – sometimes referred to collectively as 'forestation' – facilitate this process of carbon removal by establishing or re-establishing forest areas. It takes forests approximately 10 years to ramp- up to the maximum sequestration rate.{{rp|pp=26–28}}

Depending on the species, the trees will reach maturity after around 20 to 100 years, after which they store carbon but do not actively remove it from the atmosphere.{{Cite book |url=https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/greenhouse-gas-removal |title=Greenhouse Gas Removal. |date=2018 |publisher=The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering |isbn=978-1-78252-349-9 |location=London |oclc=1104595614}} 50px Text was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License]{{rp|pp=26–28}} Carbon can be stored in forests indefinitely, but the storage can also be much more short-lived as trees are vulnerable to being cut, burned, or killed by disease or drought.{{rp|pp=26–28}} Once mature, forest products can be harvested and the biomass stored in long-lived wood products, or used for bioenergy or biochar. Consequent forest regrowth then allows continuing {{CO2}} removal.{{rp|pp=26–28}}

Risks to deployment of new forest include the availability of land, competition with other land uses, and the comparatively long time from planting to maturity.{{rp|pp=26–28}}

{{main|Carbon farming}}

Carbon farming is a set of agricultural methods that aim to store carbon in the soil, crop roots, wood and leaves. The overall goal of carbon farming is to create a net loss of carbon from the atmosphere.{{Cite journal |last1=Nath |first1=Arun Jyoti |last2=Lal |first2=Rattan |last3=Das |first3=Ashesh Kumar |date=2015-01-01 |title=Managing woody bamboos for carbon farming and carbon trading |journal=Global Ecology and Conservation |language=en |volume=3 |pages=654–663 |doi=10.1016/j.gecco.2015.03.002 |issn=2351-9894 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2015GEcoC...3..654N }} This is done by increasing the rate at which carbon is sequestered into soil and plant material. One option is to increase the soil's organic matter content. This can also aid plant growth, improve soil water retention capacity{{Cite web |title=Carbon Farming {{!}} Carbon Cycle Institute |url=http://www.carboncycle.org/carbon-farming/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210521232156/https://www.carboncycle.org/carbon-farming/ |archive-date=2021-05-21 |access-date=2018-04-27 |website=www.carboncycle.org |language=en-US}} and reduce fertilizer use.{{Cite journal |last1=Almaraz |first1=Maya |last2=Wong |first2=Michelle Y. |last3=Geoghegan |first3=Emily K. |last4=Houlton |first4=Benjamin Z. |date=2021 |title=A review of carbon farming impacts on nitrogen cycling, retention, and loss |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.14690 |journal=Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=1505 |issue=1 |pages=102–117 |doi=10.1111/nyas.14690 |pmid=34580879 |bibcode=2021NYASA1505..102A |issn=0077-8923 |s2cid=238202676|url-access=subscription }} Sustainable forest management is another tool that is used in carbon farming.{{Cite journal |last1=Jindal |first1=Rohit |last2=Swallow |first2=Brent |last3=Kerr |first3=John |date=2008 |title=Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: Potential benefits and challenges |journal=Natural Resources Forum |language=en |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=116–130 |doi=10.1111/j.1477-8947.2008.00176.x |issn=1477-8947 |doi-access=free}}

Agricultural methods for carbon farming include adjusting how tillage and livestock grazing is done, using organic mulch or compost, working with biochar and terra preta, and changing the crop types. Methods used in forestry include for example reforestation and bamboo farming. Carbon farming is not without its challenges or disadvantages. This is because some of its methods can affect ecosystem services. For example, carbon farming could cause an increase of land clearing, monocultures and biodiversity loss.{{Cite journal |last1=Lin |first1=Brenda B. |last2=Macfadyen |first2=Sarina |last3=Renwick |first3=Anna R. |last4=Cunningham |first4=Saul A. |last5=Schellhorn |first5=Nancy A. |date=2013-10-01 |title=Maximizing the Environmental Benefits of Carbon Farming through Ecosystem Service Delivery |journal=BioScience |volume=63 |issue=10 |pages=793–803 |doi=10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.6 |issn=0006-3568 |doi-access=free}}

{{Excerpt|Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage|paragraphs=1}}

{{Main|Biochar carbon removal}}

Biochar is created by the pyrolysis of biomass, and is under investigation as a method of carbon sequestration.

Biochar is a charcoal that is used for agricultural purposes which also aids in carbon sequestration, the capture or hold of carbon. It is created using a process called pyrolysis, which is basically the act of high temperature heating biomass in an environment with low oxygen levels. What remains is a material known as char, similar to charcoal but is made through a sustainable process, thus the use of biomass.{{cite web|title=What is biochar?|url=http://www.biochar.ac.uk/what_is_biochar.php|website=UK Biochar research center|publisher=University of Edinburgh Kings Buildings Edinburgh|access-date=25 April 2016|archive-date=October 1, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001070549/https://www.biochar.ac.uk/what_is_biochar.php|url-status=live}} Biomass is organic matter produced by living organisms or recently living organisms, most commonly plants or plant based material.{{cite web|title=What is Biomass?|url=http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,15049&_dad=portal|website=Biomass Energy Center|publisher=Direct.gov.uk|access-date=25 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161003092000/http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,15049&_dad=portal|archive-date=October 3, 2016|url-status=dead}} A study done by the UK Biochar Research Center has stated that, on a conservative level, biochar can store 1 gigaton of carbon per year. With greater effort in marketing and acceptance of biochar, the benefit of Biochar Carbon Removal could be the storage of 5–9 gigatons per year in soils.{{cite web|url=http://www.ierm.ed.ac.uk/homes/sshackle/WP2.pdf|title=Biochar reducing and removing {{CO2}} while improving soils: A significant sustainable response to climate change|website=UKBRC|publisher=UK Biochar research Center|access-date=25 April 2016|archive-date=November 5, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161105203806/http://www.ierm.ed.ac.uk/homes/sshackle/WP2.pdf|url-status=live}}{{Better source needed|date=June 2021}} However, at the moment, biochar is restricted by the terrestrial carbon storage capacity, when the system reaches the state of equilibrium, and requires regulation because of threats of leakage.{{Cite journal |last1=Keller |first1=David P. |last2=Lenton |first2=Andrew |last3=Littleton |first3=Emma W. |last4=Oschlies |first4=Andreas |last5=Scott |first5=Vivian |last6=Vaughan |first6=Naomi E. |date=2018-09-01 |title=The Effects of Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Carbon Cycle |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0104-3 |journal=Current Climate Change Reports |language=en |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=250–265 |doi=10.1007/s40641-018-0104-3 |pmid=30956937 |pmc=6428234 |bibcode=2018CCCR....4..250K |issn=2198-6061}}

File:2010- Direct Air Capture - global - International Energy Agency (IEA) - bar chart.svg reported growth in direct air capture global operating capacity.{{cite web |title=Direct Air Capture / A key technology for net zero |url=https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/78633715-15c0-44e1-81df-41123c556d57/DirectAirCapture_Akeytechnologyfornetzero.pdf |website=International Energy Agency (IEA) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220410210408/https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/78633715-15c0-44e1-81df-41123c556d57/DirectAirCapture_Akeytechnologyfornetzero.pdf |archive-date=10 April 2022 |page=18 |date=April 2022 |url-status=live }}]]{{excerpt|Direct air capture|paragraphs=1|file=no}}

{{See also|Carbon sequestration#Sequestration in oceans}}

File:CO2 pump hg.svg

There are several methods of sequestering carbon from the ocean, where dissolved carbonate in the form of carbonic acid is in equilibrium with atmospheric carbon dioxide.{{Citation |last1=Lebling |first1=Katie |last2=Northrop |first2=Eliza |last3=McCormick |first3=Colin |last4=Bridgwater |first4=Liz |date=November 15, 2022 |title=Toward Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities |url=https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2022-11/towards-responsible-and-informed-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal.pdf |journal=World Resources Institute |language=en |page=11 |doi=10.46830/wrirpt.21.00090|s2cid=253561039 }} These include ocean fertilization, the purposeful introduction of plant nutrients to the upper ocean.{{cite journal |author1=Matear, R. J. |author2=B. Elliott |name-list-style=amp |year=2004 |title=Enhancement of oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO₂ by macronutrient fertilization |url=http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2000JC000321.shtml |url-status=live |journal=J. Geophys. Res. |volume=109 |issue=C4 |pages=C04001 |bibcode=2004JGRC..109.4001M |doi=10.1029/2000JC000321 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100304053707/http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2000JC000321.shtml |archive-date=4 March 2010 |access-date=19 January 2009 |doi-access=|url-access=subscription }}{{cite journal |author1=Jones, I.S.F. |author2=Young, H.E. |name-list-style=amp |year=1997 |title=Engineering a large sustainable world fishery |journal=Environmental Conservation |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=99–104 |doi=10.1017/S0376892997000167|bibcode=1997EnvCo..24...99J |s2cid=86248266 }} While one of the more well-researched carbon dioxide removal approaches, ocean fertilization would only sequester carbon on a timescale of 10–100 years. While surface ocean acidity may decrease as a result of nutrient fertilization, sinking organic matter will remineralize, increasing deep ocean acidity. A 2021 report on CDR indicates that there is medium-high confidence that the technique could be efficient and scalable at low cost, with medium environmental risks.{{Cite book |last=National Academies of Sciences |first=Engineering |url=https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26278/a-research-strategy-for-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration |title=A Research Strategy for Ocean-based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration |date=2021-12-08 |isbn=978-0-309-08761-2 |language=en |doi=10.17226/26278|pmid=35533244 |s2cid=245089649 }} Ocean fertilization is estimated to be able to sequester 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$8 to $80 per tonne.

Ocean alkalinity enhancement involves grinding, dispersing, and dissolving minerals such as olivine, limestone, silicates, or calcium hydroxide to precipitate carbonate sequestered as deposits on the ocean floor.{{Cite web |date=2021-06-23 |title=Cloud spraying and hurricane slaying: how ocean geoengineering became the frontier of the climate crisis |url=http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/cloud-spraying-and-hurricane-slaying-could-geoengineering-fix-the-climate-crisis |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210623071321/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/cloud-spraying-and-hurricane-slaying-could-geoengineering-fix-the-climate-crisis |archive-date=June 23, 2021 |access-date=2021-06-23 |website=The Guardian |language=en}} The removal potential of alkalinity enhancement is uncertain, and estimated at between 0.1 and 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$100 to $150 per tonne.

Electrochemical techniques such as electrodialysis can remove carbonate from seawater using electricity. While such techniques used in isolation are estimated to be able to remove 0.1 to 1 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year at a cost of US$150 to $2,500 per tonne, these methods are much less expensive when performed in conjunction with seawater processing such as desalination, where salt and carbonate are simultaneously removed.{{Cite journal |last1=Mustafa |first1=Jawad |last2=Mourad |first2=Aya A. -H. I. |last3=Al-Marzouqi |first3=Ali H. |last4=El-Naas |first4=Muftah H. |date=2020-06-01 |title=Simultaneous treatment of reject brine and capture of carbon dioxide: A comprehensive review |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0011916419316042 |journal=Desalination |language=en |volume=483 |pages=114386 |doi=10.1016/j.desal.2020.114386 |bibcode=2020Desal.48314386M |s2cid=216273247 |issn=0011-9164|url-access=subscription }} Preliminary estimates suggest that the cost of such carbon removal can be paid for in large part if not entirely from the sale of the desalinated water produced as a byproduct.{{Cite journal |last1=Mustafa |first1=Jawad |last2=Al-Marzouqi |first2=Ali H. |last3=Ghasem |first3=Nayef |last4=El-Naas |first4=Muftah H. |last5=Van der Bruggen |first5=Bart |date=February 2023 |title=Electrodialysis process for carbon dioxide capture coupled with salinity reduction: A statistical and quantitative investigation |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0011916422007184 |journal=Desalination |language=en |volume=548 |pages=116263 |doi=10.1016/j.desal.2022.116263|bibcode=2023Desal.54816263M |s2cid=254341024 |url-access=subscription }}

{{Further|Economics of climate change mitigation}}

The cost of CDR differs substantially depending on the maturity of the technology employed as well as the economics of both voluntary carbon removal markets and the physical output; for example, the pyrolysis of biomass produces biochar that has various commercial applications, including soil regeneration and wastewater treatment.{{Cite web|date=1 July 2021|title=How Finland's Puro.earth plans to scale up carbon removal to help the world reach net zero emissions|url=https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles/how-finlands-puro-earth-plans-to-scale-up-carbon-removal-to-help-the-world-reach-net-zero-emissions/|url-status=live|website=European CEO|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210701173925/https://www.europeanceo.com/profiles/how-finlands-puro-earth-plans-to-scale-up-carbon-removal-to-help-the-world-reach-net-zero-emissions/ |archive-date=July 1, 2021 }} DAC cost from $94 to $600 per tonne{{Cite journal |last=Lilonfe |first=Sylvanus |last2=Rodgers |first2=Sarah |last3=Abdul-Manan |first3=Amir F. N. |last4=Dimitriou |first4=Ioanna |last5=McKechnie |first5=Jon |date=2025-06-01 |title=Technical, economic and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analyses of solid sorbent direct air capture technologies |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277265682500020X |journal=Carbon Capture Science & Technology |volume=15 |pages=100380 |doi=10.1016/j.ccst.2025.100380 |issn=2772-6568|url-access=subscription |doi-access=free }}{{Cite journal |last=Keith |first=David W. |last2=Holmes |first2=Geoffrey |last3=Angelo |first3=David St |last4=Heidel |first4=Kenton |date=2018-08-15 |title=A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2542435118302253 |journal=Joule |language=English |volume=2 |issue=8 |pages=1573–1594 |doi=10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006 |issn=2542-4785|doi-access=free }}, biochar from $200 to $584 per tonne{{Cite journal |last=Shackley |first=Simon |first2=Hammond ,Jim |first3=Gaunt ,John |last4=and Ibarrola |first4=Rodrigo |date=2011-06-01 |title=The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.11.22 |journal=Carbon Management |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=335–356 |doi=10.4155/cmt.11.22 |issn=1758-3004|url-access=subscription }} and nature-based solutions (such as reforestation and afforestation) to be less than $50 per tonne.{{Cite web|last1=Lebling|first1=Katie|last2=McQueen|first2=Noah|last3=Pisciotta|first3=Max|last4=Wilcox|first4=Jennifer|date=2021-01-06|title=Direct Air Capture: Resource Considerations and Costs for Carbon Removal|url=https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal|language=en|journal=|access-date=May 13, 2021|archive-date=May 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210513190031/https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal|url-status=live|publisher=World Resources Institute}} The fact that biochar commands a higher price in the carbon removal market than nature-based solutions reflects the fact that it is a more durable sink with carbon being sequestered for hundreds or even thousands of years while nature-based solutions represent a more volatile form of storage, which risks related to forest fires, pests, economic pressures and changing political priorities.{{Cite web|last=Myles|first=Allen|date=February 2020|title=The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting|url=https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf|publisher=University of Oxford|access-date=10 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201002083510/https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/publications/reports/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf |archive-date=October 2, 2020 }} It is important to note that different CDR removal technologies could have their design and operational advantages, for example, while nature-based solutions are cheap, DAC plant that captures 1 MtCO₂ per year using a land area of 0.4–1.5 km² (99–371 acres) is equivalent to the CO₂ capture rates of roughly 46 million trees, requiring approximately 3,098–4,647 km² (765,494–1,148,241 acres) of land.{{Cite journal |last=Fasihi |first=Mahdi |last2=Efimova |first2=Olga |last3=Breyer |first3=Christian |date=2019-07-01 |title=Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652619307772 |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |volume=224 |pages=957–980 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.086 |issn=0959-6526|doi-access=free }}{{Cite web |last=user |date=2019-11-26 |title=This Is The Impact Of 1 Million Trees |url=https://blog.tentree.com/this-is-the-impact-of-1-million-trees/ |access-date=2025-04-18 |website=THE ENVIRONMENTOR |language=en-US}} The Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting states that to be compatible with the Paris Agreement: "...organizations must commit to gradually increase the percentage of carbon removal offsets they procure with the view of exclusively sourcing carbon removals by mid-century." These initiatives along with the development of new industry standards for engineered carbon removal, such as the Puro Standard, will help to support the growth of the carbon removal market.{{Cite web|last=Giles|first=Jim|date=10 February 2020|title=Carbon markets get real on removal|url=https://www.greenbiz.com/article/trend-carbon-markets-get-real-removal|website=greenbiz.com|url-status=live|access-date=10 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200215111350/https://www.greenbiz.com/article/trend-carbon-markets-get-real-removal |archive-date=February 15, 2020 }}

Although CDR is not covered by the EU Allowance as of 2021, the European Commission is preparing for carbon removal certification and considering carbon contracts for difference.{{Cite journal|last1=Tamme|first1=Eve|last2=Beck|first2=Larissa Lee|date=2021|title=European Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy: Current Status and Future Opportunities|journal=Frontiers in Climate|volume=3|pages=120|doi=10.3389/fclim.2021.682882|issn=2624-9553|doi-access=free}}{{Cite web|last1=Elkerbout|first1=Milan|last2=Bryhn|first2=Julie|title=Setting the context for an EU policy framework for negative emissions|url=https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PI2021-12_EU-policy-framework-for-negative-emissions.pdf|url-status=live|website=Centre for European Policy Studies|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211210135459/https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PI2021-12_EU-policy-framework-for-negative-emissions.pdf |archive-date=December 10, 2021 }} CDR might also in future be added to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.{{Cite web|title=Greenhouse Gas Removals: Summary of Responses to the Call for Evidence|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026494/ggr-cfe-summary-of-responses.pdf|publisher=HM Government|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020132909/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1026494/ggr-cfe-summary-of-responses.pdf |archive-date=October 20, 2021 }} As of end 2021 carbon prices for both these cap-and-trade schemes currently based on carbon reductions, as opposed to carbon removals, remained below $100.{{Cite web|last=Evans|first=Michael|date=2021-12-08|title=Spotlight: EU carbon price strengthens to record highs in November|url=https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/120821-spotlight-eu-carbon-price-strengthens-to-record-highs-in-november|access-date=2021-12-10|website=spglobal.com|language=en}}{{Cite web|title=Pricing Carbon|url=https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon|url-status=live|access-date=20 December 2021|website=The World Bank|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140602214204/http://www.worldbank.org:80/en/programs/pricing-carbon |archive-date=June 2, 2014 }} After the diffusion of net-zero targets, CDR plays a more important role in key emerging economies (e.g. Brazil, China, and India).{{cite journal | url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2024.2353148?src= | doi=10.1080/14693062.2024.2353148 | title=Taking stock of carbon dioxide removal policy in emerging economies: Developments in Brazil, China, and India | date=2024 | last1=Schenuit | first1=Felix | last2=Brutschin | first2=Elina | last3=Geden | first3=Oliver | last4=Guo | first4=Fei | last5=Mohan | first5=Aniruddh | last6=Oliveira Fiorini | first6=Ana Carolina | last7=Saluja | first7=Sonakshi | last8=Schaeffer | first8=Roberto | last9=Riahi | first9=Keywan | journal=Climate Policy | pages=1–20 }}

As of early 2023, financing has fell short of the sums required for high-tech CDR methods to contribute significantly to climate change mitigation. Though available funds have recently increased substantially. Most of this increase has been from voluntary private sector initiatives.{{cite journal | last=Honegger|first=Matthias |title =Toward the effective and fair funding of CO₂ removal technologies | journal = Nature Communications | volume =14 | pages =2111 | date =2023 |issue=1 | pmid = 36750567| doi =10.1038/s41467-023-36199-4 |pmc=9905497 |bibcode=2023NatCo..14..534H }} Such as a private sector alliance led by Stripe with prominent members including Meta, Google and Shopify, which in April 2022 revealed a nearly $1 billion fund to reward companies able to permanently capture & store carbon. According to senior Stripe employee Nan Ransohoff, the fund was "roughly 30 times the carbon-removal market that existed in 2021. But it's still 1,000 times short of the market we need by 2050."{{Cite web|date=2022-04-23|title=We've Never Seen a Carbon-Removal Plan Like This Before|author=Robinson Meyer|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/big-tech-investment-carbon-removal/629545/|access-date=2022-04-29|website=The Atlantic}} The predominance of private sector funding has raised concerns as historically, voluntary markets have proved "orders of magnitude" smaller than those brought about by government policy. As of 2023 however, various governments have increased their support for CDR; these include Sweden, Switzerland, and the US. Recent activity from the US government includes the June 2022 Notice of Intent to fund the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $3.5 billion CDR program, and the signing into law of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contains the 45Q tax to enhance the CDR market.{{Cite web|date=2022-06-28|title=Why Big Tech is pouring money into carbon removal|author=Katie Brigham|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/why-companies-like-stripe-meta-and-alphabet-are-behind-carbon-removal.html|access-date=2023-03-31|website=CNBC}}

Although some researchers have suggested methods for removing methane, others say that nitrous oxide would be a better subject for research due to its longer lifetime in the atmosphere.{{Cite journal|last=Lackner|first=Klaus S.|date=2020|title=Practical constraints on atmospheric methane removal|journal=Nature Sustainability|language=en|volume=3|issue=5|pages=357|doi=10.1038/s41893-020-0496-7|issn=2398-9629|doi-access=free|bibcode=2020NatSu...3..357L }}

{{Portal|Climate change|Plants|Trees}}

• {{annotated link|Biological carbon fixation}}
• {{annotated link|Carbon dioxide scrubber}}
• {{annotated link|Carbon-neutral fuel}}
• {{annotated link|Climate change scenario}}
• {{annotated link|Low-carbon economy}}
• {{annotated link|Virgin Earth Challenge}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Commons category|Carbon dioxide removal}}

• [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/outreach/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Factsheet_CDR.pdf Factsheet about CDR by IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WG III]
• [https://carbon180.org/deep-dives Deep Dives] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230405134149/https://carbon180.org/deep-dives |date=April 5, 2023 }} by Carbon180. Info about carbon removal solutions.
• [https://www.roadto10gigatons.com/ The Road to Ten Gigatons - Carbon Removal Scale Up Challenge] Game.
• [https://www.stateofcdr.org/ The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal] report. 2023.
• [https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/land Land - the planet's carbon sink], United Nations.

{{global warming}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Geoengineering

Category:Climate change policy

Category:Carbon dioxide removal

Category:Free content from The Royal Society