Author
Listed:
- Anne Merfort
(Member of the Leibniz Association
Technische Universität Berlin)
- Jessica Strefler
(Member of the Leibniz Association)
- Gabriel Abrahão
(Member of the Leibniz Association)
- Nico Bauer
(Member of the Leibniz Association)
- Tabea Dorndorf
(Member of the Leibniz Association
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin)
- Elmar Kriegler
(Member of the Leibniz Association
University of Potsdam)
- Gunnar Luderer
(Member of the Leibniz Association
Technische Universität Berlin)
- Leon Merfort
(Member of the Leibniz Association
Technische Universität Berlin)
- Ottmar Edenhofer
(Member of the Leibniz Association
Technische Universität Berlin)
Abstract
Net-zero commitments have become the focal point for countries to communicate long-term climate targets. However, to this point it is not clear to what extent conventional emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will contribute to net-zero. An integrated market for emissions and removals with a uniform carbon price delivers the economically efficient contribution of CDR to net-zero. Yet it might not fully internalise sustainability risks of CDR and hence could lead to its overuse. In this study, we explore the implications of separating targets for emissions and for removals delivered by novel CDR in global net-zero emissions pathways with the Integrated Assessment Model REMIND. We find that overall efficiency losses induced by such separation are moderate. Furthermore, limiting the CDR target comes with increasing emission prices but also significant benefits: lower cumulative emissions, a lower financial burden for public finance of CDR and limited reliance on geologic CO2 storage but fails to lower the biomass demand. Proposed targets should also ensure sufficient CDR deployment to achieve net-negative emissions in the second half of the 21st century.
Suggested Citation
Anne Merfort & Jessica Strefler & Gabriel Abrahão & Nico Bauer & Tabea Dorndorf & Elmar Kriegler & Gunnar Luderer & Leon Merfort & Ottmar Edenhofer, 2025.
"Separating CO2 emission from removal targets comes with limited cost impacts,"
Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-10, December.
Handle:
RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-60606-7
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-60606-7
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:natcom:v:16:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1038_s41467-025-60606-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.