Carbon dioxide removal–What’s worth doing? A biophysical and public need perspective
June A. Sekera, Dominique Cagalanan, Amy Swan, Richard A. Birdsey, Neva Goodwin, Andreas Lichtenberger
Abstract
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) has become a focal point for legislators and policymakers who are pursuing strategies for climate change mitigation. This paper employs a policy framework of collective biophysical need to examine two broad categories of CDR methods being subsidized and advanced by the United States and other countries: mechanical capture and biological sequestration. Using published data on these methods, we perform a biophysical input-outcome analysis, focusing on the U.S., and compare methods on the basis of three criteria: effectiveness at net carbon removal, efficiency at a climate-relevant scale, and beneficial and adverse co-impacts. Our findings indicate that biological methods have a superior return on resource inputs in comparison to mechanical methods. Biological methods are both more effective and more resource efficient in achieving a climate-relevant scale of CO2 removal. Additionally, the co-impacts of biological methods are largely positive, while those of mechanical methods are negative. Biological methods are also far less expensive. Despite their disadvantages and a track record of failure to date, mechanical CDR methods continue to receive large subsidies from the US government while biological sequestration methods do not. To achieve more optimal CDR outcomes, policymakers should evaluate CDR methods’ effectiveness, efficiency, and biophysical co-impacts. We present tools for this purpose.