Carbon dioxide removal–What’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective

June Sekera, Dominique Cagalanan, Amy Swan, Richard Birdsey, Neva Goodwin and Andreas Lichtenberger

PLOS Climate, 2023, vol. 2, issue 2, 1-21

Abstract: Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods’ effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.

Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/file?id= ... 00124&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pclm00:0000124

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS Climate from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by climate ().