Ambitious Co-scaling of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Decarbonization Delivers Better Climate Outcomes Than Strategies That Prioritize Efforts in One Domain

[Geoengineering News]

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5c17017

Authors: Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah, Chao Jin, Haifeng Liu, Mingfa Yao, Sandylove Afrane,bXuan Zhang, Zhenlong Geng, Zhangming Ge, Humphrey Adun, Jay Fuhrman, Raphael Wentemi Apeaning, David Morrow, David T. Ho, Yang Ou, Haewon McJeon

Published July 2, 2026

Abstract

Concerns about mitigation deterrence have prompted calls for pathways that avoid multigigatonne reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR), yet such pathways can also discourage near-term investment in CDR, leaving the technologies technically and economically underprepared if large-scale deployment becomes necessary due to unfulfilled emission reduction pledges. Here we model a new pathway in which CDR and decarbonization “Co-Scale” aggressively in parallel without one undermining the other, with the intention that we can readily course-correct if effort in one domain does not materialize. We treat this scenario as a stylized upper bound of what is climatically achievable under ideal enabling conditions, rather than what is immediately feasible under current technical, economic, and environmental constraints. We compare this pathway with two conventional designs, i.e., CDR-Led and Decarb-Led. In CDR-Led, large-scale CDR can substitute for deep decarbonization, while in Decarb-Led, rapid emissions reductions are prioritized and CDR plays a limited complementary role. We find that compared to these two conventional scenarios, Co-Scale reaches net zero CO2 seven years earlier, accumulates 4 times more net negative CO2 by 2100, cuts the 1.5 °C overshoot duration by roughly half, and limits end-of-century warming to 1 °C rather than 1.37–1.39 °C. Relative to the recent focus on Decarb-Led pathways, Co-Scale’s main constraints is the feasibility of geological carbon storage, while food, water, and cost pressures are comparatively less restrictive.

Source: ACS PUBLICATIONS 

[Greg Rau]

Co-Scale’s main constraints will indeed continue to be “feasibility of geological carbon storage” as long as CCS, BECCS and DAC are viewed as the primary solutions, and 70% of the Earth’s surface is viewed as CDR (and low-C energy) irrelevant.

Greg

On Jul 4, 2026, at 11:29 AM, Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHJsh9_XcHdvkoXki%2BwVvVYh%2B3BE_V-baSWq8RCOSRb6%3DqCP%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Hayes]

Greg, et al.,

Create an mCDR cash cow.

A biotic and abiotic combination of mCDR methods can provide non-CDR revenues.

A perfect high-tech oceanic 'C Farm' would have a casino parked on top of it. Fine, lets atleast produce good fertilizer/char, good food, freshwater, and sustainable energy with storage.

Best regards 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1F85C85D-BADF-4C44-9DF6-E61AE2E2919F%40sbcglobal.net.

[GRETCHEN & RON LARSON]

To:  Michael,  Greg and list:

 

    1.   I somehow missed Greg's note (in full below), so am writing here mostly about the original CDR announcement of this paper.    I sympathize with Greg's concern that the paper says nothing about marine-based CDR.    I am not commenting here on Michael's addition.

     On this list we don't talk at all about the term"de-carbonizing". An example is changing from gas powered cars to electric batteries.    Not at all CDR.   The attachment was found using an AI search, leading to 2 (multipart) figures, which I now too little about to use with this one exception.

 

    2.  It is not obvious from the abstract that the paper could not be used for marine-based CDR.   I don't know about the technique called "Co-source" - but suspect it can handle more than the "geologic" mention in the abstract's last sentence.   If it can handle ocean technologies, it perhaps can also handle biochar, which also operates in the "non-geologic"  space.  Perhaps any CDR approach?

 

    3.  I have written for a copy of the paper, but glad to start sooner, if anyone can send a copy of this "fee-only" paper.   The claimed cost benefits of their "dual" approach seem well worth exploring further, if not restricted to the "geologic" topic they have chosen to analyze in this paper.   And maybe can also handle the ocean model proposed by Michael (which also avoids the word "geologic") - which seems a problem for a still unknown reason.

 

    4.   The novelty here is adding to one specific CDR approach:  DACCS.  I haven't yet understood enough to know what more can be done besides that one technology.

 

Ron

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1eLsTtGkT47UdJjPB8Cxo3s9Jg2zoOrA6Fq0bXjbOixrw%40mail.gmail.com.