Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union
Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/14693062.2018.1536600
复制
发表时间：
2019-04-21
期刊：
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Scott, Vivian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Geden, Oliver;Peters, Glen P.;Scott, Vivian
原则上，许多气候政策制定者都承认，要实现《巴黎协定》的减排目标，大规模的二氧化碳减排（CDR）是必要的，但他们避免提出由谁来实现CDR。鉴于欧盟（EU）在国际气候政策中的作用，人们可能期望欧盟（EU）走在前面。但迄今为止，欧盟的气候政策制定者很少谈论CDR，更不用说采取行动了。在这里，我们评估了如何最好地“瞄准”CDR，以激励欧盟政策制定者探索哪种CDR目标战略可能最有效，以开始有意义的规模处理CDR。根据旨在将升温控制在2摄氏度以下的全球模型模拟，一个全面的CDR方法将侧重于在2100年之前提供欧盟所需的CDR量，大约至少500亿吨二氧化碳。一个有限的CDR方法将侧重于一个中间目标，以提供实现“净零排放”所需的CDR（即抵消过于昂贵甚至不可能缓解的剩余正排放所需的总负排放）。我们认为，对欧盟政策制定者来说，全面的CDR方法可能过于吓人。一个有限的CDR方法，只解决实现“净零排放”（中间）目标的必要步骤，可以说是更容易实现的，因为它更符合现有的政策范式，并且可以在避免环保非政府组织和更广泛公众的直接抵制的同时，允许一个务实的CDR逐步实施。
In principle, many climate policymakers have accepted that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement's mitigation targets, but they have avoided proposing by whom CDR might be delivered. Given its role in international climate policy, the European Union (EU) might be expected to lead the way. But among EU climate policymakers so far there is little talk on CDR, let alone action. Here we assess how best to 'target' CDR to motivate EU policymakers exploring which CDR target strategy may work best to start dealing with CDR on a meaningful scale. A comprehensive CDR approach would focus on delivering the CDR volumes required from the EU by 2100, approximately at least 50 Gigatonnes (Gt) CO2, according to global model simulations aiming to keep warming below 2 degrees C. A limited CDR approach would focus on an intermediate target to deliver the CDR needed to reach 'net zero emissions' (i.e. the gross negative emissions needed to offset residual positive emissions that are too expensive or even impossible to mitigate). We argue that a comprehensive CDR approach may be too intimidating for EU policymakers. A limited CDR approach that only addresses the necessary steps to reach the (intermediate) target of 'net zero emissions' is arguably more achievable, since it is a better match to the existing policy paradigm and would allow for a pragmatic phase-in of CDR while avoiding outright resistance by environmental NGOs and the broader public.