.png)
🚿 One of the biggest misconceptions I encounter in my daily work is this idea that we should focus on emission reductions only, and then at some point in future (2040, 2045, 2050?) we will turn on the CDR tap and gigatons of removals will magically flow.
🙅 This is not just plainly wrong, but actually actively harmful.
🌡️ Every single ton of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere today will heat up our planet further.
🛑 Similarly, every single ton of CO2 pulled from the atmosphere will slow global warming.
⌛ We do not have the luxury of focusing on reductions and removals sequentially. We *HAVE* to scale them both radically – in parallel.
🤓 A recent paper in Nature really drove this home to me. It highlights the significant risks involved in overshoot pathways – those that allow global temperatures to temporarily exceed critical thresholds like 1.5°C before supposedly reducing temperatures through emission cuts and large-scale CDR.
⚠️ People often think of these scenarios as simple mathematical equations. Overshoot, remove, and back to normal. The reality is that every decimal of global warming increases the risk of reaching irreversible climate tipping points.
🏗️ The paper argues that the only reliable strategy to minimise long-term climate risks and avoid the devastating consequences of overshoot is to aggressively build out “preventative CDR” alongside aggressive emission reductions.
🎤 I know I am likely preaching to the choir here, but for those out there who are still questioning the need for CDR *today* you need to wake up. You might think your position is good for the climate when it might just be doing the opposite.
⁉️ What do you think? Agree/disagree?
Comentarios