Climate Emergency Institute

CO2 removal (CDR)
Th IPCC 6th Assessment says CDR is a mitigation option
AR6 does not have the end of the fossil industry as a mitigation essential- it has to be ​

Starting with the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment removal of one CO2 is required fo atmospheric stabilization because our emissions cannot be cut to zero(90% has been seen as the best than can be done) ​

We are opposed in general on principle to geoengineering for planet cooling and for CO2 removal except direct air capture. 
Latest research was published by Environmental Research Letters 2018 Special issue Focus on Negative Emissions,  According to the IPCC 2014 AR5 global emissions reduction has been delayed for so long that '-ve emissions​​' or CO2 removal is now required. The 2018 IPCC 1.5C report's best case P1 scenario has no CCS nor CO2 removal, but the report assumes CO2 removal is feasible-today it is not.  Non geoengineering safe effective CDR includes regenerative agriculture, biochar, afforestation and wood construction in place of steel & concrete.  CDR geo-engineering methods are not mature technologies and all sources conclude their practical value at scale to be questionable. The most published CDR method is bioenergy + carbon capture sequestration (BECCS). There are potential direct air capture technologies (DAC) but the IPCC treats these as too expensive. Many IPCC reports address CDR.  The IPCC 2007 AR4 WG3  included CDR in equilibrium warming of 2C.  2011 IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering. IPCC 2014 AR5b WG 3 SPM says: The availability and scale of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and methods are uncertain and CDR technologies and methods are, associated with challenges and risks (high confidence). Springer in 2013 published a special issue on -ve emissions. The most comprehensive IPCC 2014 AR5 BECCS assessment is WG3 11.13 Appendix Bioenergy.Recent 2017 review shows that even after many years of consideration CDR has made no real progress. The most recent report,(Feb 2018) is on the UN Climate Sec site by the European Academies Science Advisory Council, which does not support BECCS and concludes 'these technologies offer only limited realistic potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere' .. 'and not at the levels required to compensate for inadequate mitigation'. The really bad news is research finding that CDR is of little to no help for the ocean disruption. CDR theoretical potentials have been published nevertheless. All methods need to to be tried as part of the planetary emergency response but assumed effectiveness should not be relied for mitigation policy. Despite being included in many models and mitigation papers, it therefore remains unknown if CCS, BECCS or DAC are feasible and we have to assume will not stop ocean heating, acidification and deoxygenation. As the oceans are the ultimate determinant of climate this makes the Earth emergency doubly dire. We need a planet emergency global massive Manhattan model project.   
 ALL fossil fuel energy must be replaced by clean virtual zero carbon ever lasting energy.​​ That is because of the definite science of zero carbon emissions, without which global temperature and ocean acidification cannot stabilize (

Renewable energy can repower the world according to the IPCC in its 2011 renewable energy report that all fossil fuel energy could be replaced by renewable energies, for an investment of 1% of global GDP or $5 over the next decade. This is the same as governments have been giving to the fossil fuel industries in subsidies (IMF 2015). 

​​The Burning Age is over and the only solution to carbon pollution ​is conversion to a (virtual) zero carbon clean renewable energy economy​​

​​Zero carbon means zero deforestation, plus global afforestation 


Our planet is on the brink of runaway climate change - total planetary catastrophe.
We have to convert our industrial GHG polluting world to ​a non GHG polluting one and fast. ​An immediate International Planetary Emergency Manhattan Marshall Model Venture(NOT planetary cooling) is now the only survival response — primarily for a big upgrade of our new clean energy technologies and to get safe, zero-combustion, super high energy density safe new fission and hopefully fusion power on line, which is ​now looking feasible. And we need safe direct air CO2 removal to get near zero CO2 emissions (not by burning biomass). For energy/power density, see Vaclav Smi​l and IPCC renewable energy report, SREEN

Food production 30% emissions

From 2012 published research world food production is now responsible for 30% of global GHG emissions. This requires stopping forestation for agricultural land, conversion off the meat heavy diet to 100% plant based
End livestock meat industry which is a major increasing source o methane emissions 
Wetland rice cultivation if a major ​increasing source of methane 

​​Because of unavoidable CO2 emissions from our best food production, the best we do to stop adding CO2 is energy conversion is virtual zero carbon (90% reduction of CO2 emissions) which requires some CO2 removal 
A decade to end fossil fuels  2016 study​
In its 2019 Emissions GAP Report the UNEP said (again) emissions had to decline by 2020  UNEP 2019 GLOBAL EMISSIONS MUST DROP 7.6%/ YEAR from 2020. UNEP had called for the 2020 emissions decline at the latest in its 2022 Gap Report- for the 2°C limit. UNEP had called for global emissions to decline by 2020 at the very least in its 2011 Gap Report.
 Jan 2020 Mother Jones A best overall article on mitigation We Need a Massive Manhattan type R&D project and mobilization on wartime model and scale
VIDEO 2021IPCC Chair H. Lee at the 2021 UN COP26 says Global emissions must decline immediately for 1.5°C & 2°C
Oct 2020 FoE.  Net zero fraud
Open ended Net zero, (not defined as today) is a misleading chimera
It depends on unspecified so unlimited CO2 removal ​(see below)
3 May 2021 Dangerous Trap
11 Dec 2020 net zero busted
11 May 2021. De-growth now a must
Double click here to edit this text.
Today (2023) global emissions of all GHGs are higher than ever and still increasing as fast as ever.
​For years the IPCC and climate science have said 
global emissions must be decline by 2020 at the very latest. The 2007 AR4 had 2015 as the time limit for 2°C
The 2018 IPPC 1.5°C Report and UNEP called ​for  halving emissions reduction by 2030
The IPCC AR6 (WG3) called for IMMEDIATE rapid reduction in global emissions​​.

The IPCC has made it clear that fossil fuel combustion must end. Mitigation "pathways
would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other
long-lived greenhouse gases" IPCC 2014 AR5​​​

For any chance to "secure a liveable future" (IPCC AR6) emissions have to decline "immediately" (IPCC AR6).
​​The IPCC Chair first called for this immediate emissions decline December 2021 at UN COP25
"Our assessments show that climate stabilization implies that
greenhouse gas emissions must start to peak from next year".
This was last repeated by the IPCC Chair at the 2023 COP28 (30 Nov, 2023)
"Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, we will not meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.The UNEP Gap Report released a few days ago shows that we are headed towards global warming of 3 degrees Celsius if we carry on with current policies". (IPCC Chair, Jim Skea) 
That means without immediate deep emissions reductions, global warming will not be limited to 2°C, let alone 1.5°C. It will increase to 3°C. From the IPCC AR6  globall disastrous 1.5°C will be in "the early 2030s" and 2C by 2050 

Paris Agreement, ​Article 2, 1 (a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and
impacts of climate change;​

​​Incredibly this survival message of
immediacy has not got out- at all, and is not being put out, even by the scientists. 
All it requires to get started in the right direction is the immediate unconditional termination of all fossil fuel and all other GHG polluting subsidies by governments.
​Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion last year as governments supported consumers and businesses (24 ​August 2023, IMF)

​​Emissions will keep increasing otherwise, which means
unprecedented ever increasing hardship and suffering, and the end of the world for humanity.

Citizens have to oppose big economy governments, big fossil fuel corporations and big banks that are determined to keep the world dependant on fossil fuels, and increasing emissions to continue which is an unprecedented evil. 

 IEA International Energy Agency Net Zero Emissions by 2050
Surprisingly there is only one detailed calculated plan by a relevant institution and that is the IEA
NET ZERO Net-zero has taken over all mitigation discussion
​Net zero ​​emissions (unspecified as today) and carbon neutral mean nothing for rapid mitigation.
​It has to be by zero fossil fuel combustion and zero carbon combustion (no wood pellet/biomass power production, no biofuels, no cement-burning limestone)). The fossil industry has to end, replaced by 100% clean renewable energy.

Unqualified net zero, ​​that even the fossil fuel corporations favour, is another way to delay mitigation and keep burning fossil fuels   
The 2018 IPCC 1.5°C Report best case P1 had fossil fuel energy production down to near zero by 2050, specified by fuel (see on image)
                        No more carbon 
Zero fossil fuels​
Stabilization ​of all long lived atmospheric GHGs (IPCC includes methane) is required to halt global warming and ocean heating

As has been know for many years Stabilization of climate (and oceans) requires no more carbon added to the atmosphere. This is due to the very long lifetime of atmospheric CO2 (hundreds of years) and the ocean thermal intertia
See our site​
​So only phasing out fossil fuels 100% (fast) can stabilize atmospheric CO2 

With 14 million yr. high CO2 level at  ths is obvious

Mitigation Target has to be "near zero emissions" of CO2, methane, nittrous oxide and F-gases
See methane and nitrous oxide mitigation projections above​

To limit warming to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels ...would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades and near zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases by the end of the century (IPCC classifies methane as long lived). (IPCC 2014 AR5, Synthesis Headline statements) 
End Deforestation 
​Stabilizing CO2 and zero combustion. requires the termination of deforestation, which is a significant source of CO2 emissions (12-20%) 
Most recent mitigation is from UN Climate Secretariat 
Decline Emissions The only discussion on emissions is decline emissions or less emissions, without any time-frame or rate, or ending fossil fuels, including from scientists and their papers
Energy consumption
​World over-all energy use has to decline for global emissions to drop to near zero 

All IPCC scenarios (incl. mitigation) assume continued economic growth, making rapid decline unfeasible. ​
​​In fact the 2020 emissions deadline (for 2°C) goes back to the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment, and has been repeated since, by numerous papers and reports
Transition.Fossil fuel transition is the buzzword on mitigation, but it is undefined, so can mean anything, and it's not linked to immediate emissions decline
GHG emissions sources
​To plan for near zero knowledge of GHG emissions is needed
The IPCC 2007 4th Assessment 2°C mitigation scenario was RCP2.6, emissions decline by 2020 
Scientists no longer use atmospheric GHGs to calculate mitigation (though it is the 1992 UN climate change convention metric to limit). 
IPCC AR4 ​showed for limiting to 2°C global emissions had to decline from 2025 and atmospheric CO2 had to be 350 ppm CO2, 445 ppm atmospheric CO2 equivalent as here, 2022 atmospheric CO2 eq. was 523 ppm, so we are far above the old 2°C limit and 1.5°C is impossible
IPCC science at 2013 COP 19
Today 2024, climate change remains unmitigated, there are no science based all GHG emissions mitigation plans. UNEP Production Gap By 2030, Plans of world govenments produce 110% more fossil fuels than 1.5°C, and 69% more than 2°C.