Large-Scale Carbon Removal Will Create Public Health, Economic, and Climate Trade-Offs

[Geoengineering News]

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5c17950

Authors: Parisa Javadi, Patrick O’RourkeJay Fuhrman, Daniel H. Loughlin, Scott C. Doney, William Shobe, João Ferreira, Andrés F. Clarens

07 June 2026

Abstract 

Economy-wide efforts to achieve net-zero emissions offer climate and air quality-related public health benefits from reducing fossil fuel combustion. However, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) may be necessary to meet emissions targets cost-effectively, and relying on CDR would forego some air-quality benefits. Here, we systematically quantify the regional air quality and public health implications of six CDR portfolios for the U.S. using a coupled modeling approach and compare those to a no U.S. climate action scenario. While both high- and low-CDR deployment avoid about $2.5–5.8 trillion USD2020 (or 0.4–0.8% of cumulative GDP (CGDP)) in climate damages, the high-CDR pathway costs $11–13 trillion USD2020 (or 1.8–1.9% of CGDP) by 2050, whereas the low-CDR pathway costs $16–20 trillion USD2020 (or 2.6–2.9% of CGDP) due to deeper near-term fossil fuel reductions. Public health benefits reach $2.8–6.5 trillion USD2020 (or 0.5–0.9% of CGDP) under high-CDR and are $3.5–8 trillion USD2020 (0.6–1.2% of CGDP) under low-CDR, reflecting greater reductions in particulate matter and ozone exposure and preventing approximately 12,600 additional premature deaths by mid-century. However, heavy reliance on CDR technologies could generate $5–6 trillion USD2020 (∼0.8–0.9% of CGDP) in CDR revenues by 2050, exemplifying the trade-offs between public health, economy, and climate.

Source: ACS Publications 

[Greg Rau]

Thoughts:

The social cost of CO2 used here (<$115/t) only applies to the impacts/costs in years 2025-2050(?) whereas legacy CO2 in air will impact (and cost) us for centuries/millennia.  Has the SC of CO2 emissions and hence the benefit of its reduction via CDR been drastically underestimated?

Use of DOCCS as the only mCDR approach offered clearly reduces CDR capacity/availability and biases the total CDR cost (and risk) to higher values than it should be if a broader mCDR (and land CDR) portfolio were used. 

That Texas is indicated as the biggest CDR and economic winner (Fig. 2) is just a reflection of the bias toward BECCS, DAC and (and DOCCS?) and the assumed CDR requirement of massive geologic/oil field C storage? Big Oil's (ironic) influence on CDR strategy/policy never ceases to amaze. We will of course be stuck with high CDR costs, limited capacity and very uneven economic benefits if this continues. How about stimulating innovation and building more capacity at less cost starting with a fair distribution (based on merit) of public funding and incentives (and tax breaks) for RDD&D, and then forming open markets for buying/selling credits from any CDR method that can prove a climate benefit of specified duration? Or will the "winners" continue to come down to who has the best DC lobbyists?

Greg  

--
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/CAHJsh990cJ4%2BTBeML%2BHvHGFboZKzHEGj5K1hWG97BHsDjwYSUg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Greg H. Rau, Ph.D.

Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Marine Sciences
Univer. California, Santa Cruz
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau
Co-founder and manager, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Google group
Co-founder and Senior Scientist, Planetary Technologies, Inc.
510 582 5578

510 363 1519 c

[Michael Hayes]

Given that the modeling posits global decarbonization, the United States would inherently benefit from these worldwide advancements through avenues such as trade, diplomacy, or collaborative climate initiatives.

The marine environment appears particularly well-suited for "collective climate action" given the more consistent environmental and policy realities found offshore, in contrast to disparate state-by-state endeavors.

I dedicated several hours to engaging with an AI, Gemini, providing it with marine-based Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and energy conversion technical options that could potentially address the bulk of the authors' concerns. However, the comprehensive list of key marine CDR and energy technologies, and their potential benefits for terrestrial decarbonization energy requirements and agricultural land use, is extensive. Consequently, presenting numerous individual AI exchanges would be unsuitable for this platform.

Therefore, I propose scheduling a Zoom meeting to allow interested stakeholders to observe these AI interactions in real-time and potentially contribute their own insights. 

Best regards 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAK_B4%3D-wqkZoQShw-TnYUG5BbdoTO6bYchcXsN4fOAs3yJRCZg%40mail.gmail.com.