Is Carbon Dioxide Removal in the Arctic Region Really Feasible?

[Geoengineering News]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666916126000022

‎

Authors: Walter Leal Filho, Johannes M. Luetz, Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis, Julian David Hunt, Gustavo J. Nagy

08 January 2025

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2026.100289

Highlights

•Synthesises Arctic CDR feasibility: technical, ecological, socio-political

•Compares direct air capture, enhanced weathering, peatland and blue carbon

•Assesses Arctic constraints: permafrost, short seasons, energy demands

•Highlights governance, equity, and permanence risks in Arctic deployment

•Offers policy framework contrasting Arctic CDR with alternative mitigation

Abstract

The Arctic region, warming at nearly four times the global average rate, is both an important carbon sink and a potential source of greenhouse gas emissions, especially due to thawing permafrost. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is increasingly recognised as a necessary measure to support global efforts to reduce emissions. This article examines whether, and under what conditions, large-scale CDR deployment in the Arctic is practically feasible. It also discusses the challenges associated with it. We synthesise peer-reviewed evidence on the performance of key CDR approaches relevant to high-latitude environments, including nature-based solutions (NbS), e.g. peatland restoration, blue carbon protection and afforestation, as well as enhanced rock weathering (ERW), ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). Across these approaches, the feasibility is constrained by permafrost dynamics, hydrology, ecological sensitivity, energy availability, monitoring and verification, and governance. Whereas some CDR methods offer potential climate benefits, most are characterised by considerable uncertainty and context-dependent trade-offs. None currently demonstrates unequivocal feasibility at scale under Arctic conditions. Beyond these technical and ecological constraints, we identify four clusters of socio-political barriers that further complicate Arctic CDR: governance fragmentation, geopolitical tensions, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and uneven global deployment. A comparative assessment suggests that peatland restoration and blue carbon protection are the most immediately actionable options, whereas DACCS and OAE would require substantial new infrastructure and energy investment. The study concludes by outlining targeted policy and research priorities to address existing technological, ecological, and governance challenges, and to situate Arctic CDR within broader mitigation strategies without risking over-reliance or mitigation deterrence. The novelty of this paper lies in its analysis of the multiple variables that influence the viability of CDR. Overall, Arctic CDR appears technically possible but remains highly constrained, with its feasibility contingent on meeting stringent operational conditions, robust governance, and continued emissions reductions elsewhere.

Source: ScienceDirect