IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pclm00/0000124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Carbon dioxide removal–What’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective

Author

Listed:
  • June Sekera
  • Dominique Cagalanan
  • Amy Swan
  • Richard Birdsey
  • Neva Goodwin
  • Andreas Lichtenberger

Abstract

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods’ effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.

Suggested Citation

  • June Sekera & Dominique Cagalanan & Amy Swan & Richard Birdsey & Neva Goodwin & Andreas Lichtenberger, 2023. "Carbon dioxide removal–What’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective," PLOS Climate, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(2), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pclm00:0000124
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000124?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pclm00:0000124. 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: climate (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/climate .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.