🧐 New blog: What does durability of carbon removal even mean? And why does it matter? 🧐

🌍 If you’re reading this, you already know that carbon dioxide removal (hashtag#CDR) is essential to achieving global net-zero targets.

😖 But if you scratch just below the surface, you come to learn that there is still a surprising amount of ambiguity around what constitutes the right durability for CDR.

🌐 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s definition simply says “durably”.

🇺🇲 For the U.S. Department of Energy, the threshold sits at 100 years.

🇪🇺 In the EU, CDR qualifies as permanent if its durability lasts “several centuries”.

⛰️ The advanced market mechanism Frontier sets it at 1,000 years.

😱 You might think this is semantics, but it could actually make the difference between hitting net zero or massive failure, even when net zero is “achieved”.

🧑‍🔬 For my latest blog, I have teamed up with ETH Zurich scientist Cyril Brunner to dive deep into this. Cyril, alongside Zeke Hausfather and Rene Knutti, just published a study in Nature on the impact of varying CDR durability on our ability to hit (and maintain) net zero - see comments.

In this opinion piece, we look at both the science and - crucially - the policy implications of how we define and use durability in achieving net zero. We ask for three specific actions from policy makers:

1️⃣ Clearly and consistently define durability

2️⃣ Differentiate between temporary and durable CDR

3️⃣ Adopt the like-for-like principle across policies

👀 Check out “The hidden risk in net zero targets: why storage durability matters” on Illimunem today: https://lnkd.in/dFRPqZW3

❓ Would love to hear what you think? Do you agree/disagree?

Follow the conversation