Sentences with phrase «on carbon dioxide removal»

The National Science Foundation and U.S. federal agencies could spur innovation with investments in transparent research programs on carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration.

FCEA co-executive director Wil Burns will present on carbon dioxide removal.

They also risk failing to achieve the 2 °C target, and rely more on carbon dioxide removal technologies (e.g. bioenergy and carbon capture and storage), which have yet to be proven at scale.

In February, the National Academies of Science released two major reports on geoengineering, one on carbon dioxide removal technologies (to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and hence reduce the greenhouse effect) and the other on «albedo modification» or solar radiation management technologies (to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space and thereby cool the planet).

They also risk of failing to achieve the 2 degrees C target, and rely more on carbon dioxide removal technologies (e.g. bioenergy and carbon capture and storage), which have yet to be proven at scale.

The Carbon Brief does a great job of aggregating these responses, which reveal both positive and negative signs for future discourse on carbon dioxide removal («CDR»)-- i.e. removing and sequestering excess carbon from the atmosphere and oceans.

Given that the Central Intelligence Agency was one of the main sponsors of the Academy report on atmospheric intervention and a companion volume on carbon dioxide removal from air, there's also plenty of room for conspiracy theories.

Not exact matches

The simulations also suggest that the removal of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by natural processes on land and in the ocean will become less efficient as the planet warms.

Therefore, future research should look not only on BECCS, but continue to explore all carbon dioxide removal options: we will probably be dependent on the full deck of cards, even if we don't end up playing all of them.»

-- Enhanced weathering processes on land and in the ocean to accelerate natural removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have only been carried out on a limited scale with intermediate technological readiness.

Decisions regarding deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies will be largely based on cost and scalability, and research is needed to make current options more effective, more environmentally friendly, and less costly.

Note 2: Including «Carbon Sequestration on Agricultural Lands «as part of a «Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration» (emphasis added) report is an important win for advocates of soil carbon sequestration: many geologic sequestration proponents have called into question the permanence of soil carbon sequestration as a major issue with these approaches, which the NAS report largely doesn't raise as an issue.

«Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends research and development investment to improve methods of carbon dioxide removal and disposal at scales that would have a global impact on reducing greenhouse warming, in particular to minimize energy and materials consumption, identify and quantify risks, lower costs, and develop reliable sequestration and monitoring.»

Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the...

The removal of the phrase does have the effect of making the inclusion of carbon dioxide as a «climatic factor» slightly less nonsensical on its face.

And it endorses the deployment of various carbon dioxide removal methods as relatively benign ways to counter human emissions, arguing that the decision on mitigation versus carbon dioxide removal is largely a question of cost.

[W] hile this study shows that alternative options can greatly reduce the volume of CDR [carbon dioxide removal] to achieve the 1.5 °C goal, nearly all scenarios still rely on BECCS and / or reforestation (even the hypothetical combination of all alternative options still captured 400 GtCO2 by reforestation).

Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining, the projected high costs of carbon capture and storage, the human health dangers of large, rapid releases of carbon dioxide, the global warming risk posed by small levels leakage over long periods, increases in coal mining needed to run scrubbers as well as carbon capture and storage systems.

The current state of knowledge on the capacity of land management practices as a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approach and the scientific and technical research requirements to achieve this capacity

On October 30, we co-hosted a workshop on negative emissions technologies / carbon dioxide removal with The George Washington University Environmental and Energy Management InstitutOn October 30, we co-hosted a workshop on negative emissions technologies / carbon dioxide removal with The George Washington University Environmental and Energy Management Instituton negative emissions technologies / carbon dioxide removal with The George Washington University Environmental and Energy Management Institute.

[note] I mainly focus here on solar radiation management (SRM) forms of geoengineering, but even carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can trigger moral hazard if it implies that delay in emissions reduction is acceptable or desirable.

«Negative emissions», also known as «carbon dioxide removal» (CDR), refers to a group of approaches and technologies that take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it on land, underground or in the oceans.

Working on solar geoengineering and carbon dioxide removal today is overall a good thing except insofar as actions taken today to reduce emissions reflect an expectation that these technologies should and will be deployed at large scale at some point in the future.

Achieving that goal will be more than twice as hard as staying below 2 C and it would involve making sharp adjustments to rich - country lifestyles, large amounts of foreign aid and deploying carbon dioxide removal measures like bioenergy carbon capture and storage on a massive scale.

Instead, carbon removal aims to reduce historical human influence on the climate system by decreasing the amount of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — essentially reversing the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Welcomes the agreement achieved by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its work pursuant to decisions 1 / CMP.1, 1 / CMP.5 and 1 / CMP.6 in the areas of land use, land - use change and forestry (decision - / CMP.7), emissions trading and the project - based mechanisms (decision - / CMP.7), greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories, common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and other methodological issues (decision - / CMP.7) and the consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties (decision - / CMP.7);

Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through large - scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation.

Noah Deich blogs about all things carbon dioxide removal («CDR») at (carbonremoval.wordpress.com), where you can find commentary and analysis on the latest CDR news, links to CDR - related research, and opportunities to learn about CDR at upcoming conferences and events.

I am writing to address the request for comments about «climate intervention» research (Page 22, lines 31 - 42), with a particular focus on how the USGCRP can design their research coordination efforts around «carbon removal» (also called «carbon dioxide removal» or «CDR») most effectively.

Since a basic North American continental experiment was already successfully executed on the few post 911 clear sky days, I posit that simple solar L1 irradiance modification experiments could be designed to test the hypothesis without any serious side effects (certainly without moving an asteroid) to successfully obtain the desired data to enable more permanent temporary solutions, and in order to give us more time to develop the necessary carbon dioxide removal and sequestration schemes — aka carbon containing products).

A report released in April by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that avoiding the internationally agreed upon goal of 2 °C of global warming will likely require the global deployment of «carbon dioxide removal» strategies like air capture.

Why fiddle around with carbon trading when we could be doing carbon removal from our biosphere by using the pyrolysis process on the massive ever - expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage solids that present handling procedures allow to naturally biodegrade to reemit carbon dioxide that nature trapped in biochemicals.