Sentences with phrase «achieving negative emissions»

The most likely method of achieving negative emissions, biomass with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), is controversial because it might require very large areas of land to be set aside for fast - growing trees or other biomass crops.

Achieving negative emissions will involve what the analysis calls «the deployment of uncertain and at present controversial technologies, including biomass energy with carbon capture and storage.»

The report, however, relies overwhelmingly on bio-CCS and afforestation to achieve negative emissions in its scenarios that avoid this dangerous warming.

Yet serious questions remain, including about the company's reliance on yet - to - be-developed technologies to achieve negative emissions — read more here and here and here.

BECCS is being promoted as a means to achieve negative emissions whereby more greenhouse gases are taken out of the atmosphere than are put into it.

Not exact matches

To become CO2 - negative requires replanting copses of multiple additional trees to account for the emissions from that one tree cut down, a process that can take several years or more to achieve any CO2 drawdown.

The Carbon Brief article does a great job of highlighting the fact that «negative emission technologies» — or carbon dioxide removal («CDR») approaches are critical for enabling the global economy to achieve a «net zero» commitment.

This could in theory be achieved through the use of negative emissions technologies, Eakin tells Carbon Brief:

The Carbon Brief article does a great job of highlighting the fact that «negative emission technologies» — or carbon dioxide removal («CDR») approaches are critical for enabling the global economy to achieve -LSB-...]

Our results show that the only way in our scenarios to achieve the 1.5 °C target in the presence of SIAF would be through negative emissions, which imply more risks and uncertainties for the future [Rogelj et al., 2015; Hansen et al., 2016].

To achieve the Paris ambition, emissions most likely have to peak in the next decade and there is a growing likelihood that negative emissions technologies will be necessary.

The study, published today in Nature Communications, argues that «negative emissions» alone, in the absence of conventional mitigation, are unlikely to achieve the 2C goal.

In its latest report, the IPCC said: «Net negative emissions can be achieved when more GHGs are sequestered than are released into the atmosphere (e.g., by using bio-energy in combination with carbon dioxide capture and storage).

Importantly CO2 removal is not only needed to enable negative emissions but also to achieve zero CO2 emissions globally.

More precisely, the activities included aim to enable children to: explain the issue of climate change and its impact on children and child rights; explain how reducing carbon emissions in industrialized countries can reduce climate change and its negative effects, and that they can contribute personally to achieving this; and develop skills to undertake action.

Many commentators and policymakers have also argued that so - called «negative emissions technologies,» such as BECCS, will be critical to meet the Paris Agreement's objectives to «achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.»

However, most instruments have best practice applications that have achieved CO2 reductions at low or negative social costs, signalling that a broad portfolio of tools is available to governments to cut building ‐ related emissions cost ‐ effectively.

Wehner and his co-authors of Chapter 2 of the NCA, which looked at the physical basis for our understanding of climate change, considered seven different future scenarios (including four new ones), ranging from the «do nothing» option to a geoengineering option, which would require an as - yet uninvented technology to take CO2 out of the atmosphere on a global scale, to achieve net negative emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

For example, one of the scenarios included in the IPCC's latest assessment assumes aggressive emissions reductions designed to limit the global temperature increase to 3.6 °F (2 °C) above pre-industrial levels.3 This path would require rapid emissions reductions (more than 70 % reduction in human - related emissions by 2050, and net negative emissions by 2100 — see the Appendix 3: Climate Science, Supplemental Message 5) sufficient to achieve heat - trapping gas concentrations well below those of any of the scenarios considered by the IPCC in its 2007 assessment.

HL: The IPCC report indicated that negative emissions are required to achieve a 2C goal and the technology to achieve that goal is not yet available.

On the feasibility of 2C: «The IPCC report indicated that negative emissions are required to achieve a 2C goal and the technology to achieve that goal is not yet available.»

One of the new reports found that such an ambitious warming goal would require a global energy transition with such speed and scale as has never before been achieved, as well as an emphasis on «negative emissions» that have not been tested at the necessary magnitude that would be required.

Achieving 1.5 C may, therefore, require substantial deployment of negative emissions technologies, which at the moment remain untested at large scales.

Meanwhile, the avantgarde in emissions targets consists of CO2 levels lower than those presently existing, i.e. we're already in overshoot and need to achieve zero emissions and then a carbon - negative period of CO2 drawdown.

We therefore examine the human health benefits of increasing 21st - century CO2 reductions by 180 GtC, an amount that would shift a «standard» 2 °C scenario to 1.5 °C or could achieve 2 °C without negative emissions.