Achieving the Paris Agreement’s targets will inevitably impose financial burdens, but choosing the most economically viable path is critical. At COP28, countries pledged to triple renewable energy capacity to 11,000 GW and double energy efficiency gains to 4% annually by 2030. The agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) sector also committed to reducing emissions and enhancing carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Using the En-ROADS modeling tool, this study evaluates five global scenarios combining varying degrees of fossil fuel reduction and CDR deployment: Ref (based on current COP28-aligned pledges), Ref++ (Ref with added fossil fuel taxes and carbon pricing), limCDR (Ref++ plus limited deployment of technological CDR up to 50% of its potential), modCDR (Ref with moderate CDR deployment up to 65% of potential, but no fossil fuel taxation), and allCDR (Ref with full utilization of technological CDR potential and no fossil fuel taxation). While population growth is held constant across all scenarios, economic outcomes diverge. The Ref scenario fails to meet the 1.5°C goal and produces the lowest long-term GDP per capita. Ref++ achieves the temperature target but entails sharper near-term fiscal adjustments. modCDR improves macroeconomic performance relative to Ref but does not limit warming below 1.7°C. allCDR defers mitigation costs through heavy reliance on large-scale removals, reducing early fiscal pressure but increasing long-term dependence on CDR. limCDR emerges as the most balanced pathway that meets the 1.5°C target while delivering the highest GWP and GDP per capita by 2100, combining phased fossil mitigation with moderate CDR deployment. These findings demonstrate that neither fossil fuel phaseout nor CDR alone is sufficient; a calibrated mix of early mitigation and targeted removals is essential to achieve climate goals while maintaining long-term economic resilience.
Olasehinde et al. (Sun,) studied this question.