Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Though highly motivated to slow the climate crisis, governments may struggle to impose costly polices on entrenched interest groups, resulting in a greater need for negative emissions. Here, we model wartime-like crash deployment of direct air capture (DAC) as a policy response to the climate crisis, calculating funding, net CO₂ removal, and climate impacts. An emergency DAC program, with investment of 1.2-1.9% of global GDP annually, removes 2.2-2.3 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in 2050, 13-20 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in 2075, and 570-840 GtCO₂ cumulatively over 2025-2100. Compared to a future in which policy efforts to control emissions follow current trends (SSP2-4.5), DAC substantially hastens the onset of net-zero CO₂ emissions (to 2085-2095) and peak warming (to 2090-2095); yet warming still reaches 2.4-2.5 °C in 2100. Such massive CO₂ removals hinge on near-term investment to boost the future capacity for upscaling. DAC is most cost-effective when using electricity sources already available today: hydropower and natural gas with renewables; fully renewable systems are more expensive because their low load factors do not allow efficient amortization of capital-intensive DAC plants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hanna et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: