Skip to main content

SPECIALTY GRAND CHALLENGE article

Front. Clim., 18 September 2023
Sec. Carbon Dioxide Removal

Specialty grand challenge: renaming our section to “Carbon Dioxide Removal”

  • 1Research Center for Carbon Solutions, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  • 2Department of Geography, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • 3Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
  • 4Research Cluster Climate Policy and Politics, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Berlin, Germany
  • 5Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
  • 6Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
  • 7Department of Thematic Studies, Unit of Environmental Change, The Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research (CSPR), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
  • 8Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
  • 9Department of Geography, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • 10Institute for Philosophy, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
  • 11Energy and Environment Institute, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom
  • 12National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Strategic Energy Analysis Center, Golden, CO, United States
  • 13The Emmett Institute, School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States
  • 14Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy
  • 15University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States
  • 16RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (EIEE), Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici, Lecce, Italy
  • 17Department of Mechanical Engineering, Global CO2 Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
  • 18Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India
  • 19Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States

While the concept of removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere to help prevent climate change has been around for decades, it is only relatively recently that its importance within climate policy has moved into mainstream discussions. As such, conventions for nomenclature are widely debated (for examples, see Table 1). The proposed methods of removing CO2 from the atmosphere to restore a level that ensures a stable climate, are diverse and often share little in their form and function beyond their impact on atmospheric CO2. However, for this reason alone, it is useful to refer to these within an umbrella term. In this editorial, we outline why the editorial board has decided to rename this section of Frontiers in Climate to “Carbon Dioxide Removal”.

TABLE 1
www.frontiersin.org

Table 1. The use of terminology to describe the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere from IPCC 1.5 degree report and the 6th Assessment Report.

The original title for the section “Negative Emission Technologies” (NETs) was first used in a paper title by Lemoine et al. (2012), although “negative emissions” seems to have been used perfunctorily in the climate modeling community (e.g., Harvey, 2004) as a useful driver to a desired atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the “technologies” for achieving this were implicit (Azar et al., 2006), and finally explicitly referred to as NETs (Azar et al., 2010) specifically for biomass energy carbon capture and storage. It similarly has been used within life-cycle analysis (LCA) to describe emissions reduction approaches that result in a net negative value on LCA emissions balance sheets (e.g., Brinck et al., 2011). McLaren (2012), responding to the use of “negative emissions” terminology by the UK Climate Change

Committee, was the first to connect negative emissions with the broader set of technologies that perform the function (although with a preference for “techniques”) and encompassing non-CO2 greenhouse gasses. NETs has subsequently been used in high level reports by the Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal Reliable Sequestration (2019) and the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, EASAC (Courvoisier and European Academies Science Advisory Council, 2018), and it was within this context that the name was chosen for this section (Renforth and Wilcox, 2020).

“Carbon Dioxide Removal” (CDR) has been used extensively (e.g., an early example specifically referring to removal from the atmosphere is Spector and Dodge, 1946). CDR was also the preferred sub categorization within the emerging discussion on “Geoengineering” (Keith, 2000; The Royal Society Shepherd, 2009; NASEM, 2015). The term appears to be favored within the IPCC's 6th Assessment Report (AR6), referenced in both Chapter 3, 4, 7 and 12 of working group III to specifically refer to the approaches that remove CO2 from the atmosphere (Babiker et al., 2022; Lecocq et al., 2022; Nabuurs, 2022; Riahi et al., 2022). “Negative emissions” is used by AR6 to refer to outcome of applying CDR at a systems level, rather than the removal approach. The “technologies” within NET is almost entirely omitted from use within AR6, and follows concerns about the drawing of arbitrary lines between “natural” and “technological” CDR (Bellamy and Osaka, 2020). Likewise, within international, European and US governance policy landscapes, the terms “carbon removal” and “CDR” are now consistently used (see for example negotiations around Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC Secretariat, 2015), the EU legislative process on the certification of carbon removals (European Commission, 2022), the proposed US Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act (US Congress, 2022) and other policy spheres (Schenuit et al., 2021; Schenuit and Geden, 2023). Finally, the term has been the preferred choice in the influential Carbon Dioxide Removal Primer (Wilcox et al., 2021).

An initial reason for the choice of NETs for the section was that CDR can easily be confused with processes that remove CO2 from other gases, especially carbon capture and storage (CCS) which was first suggested in 1977 (under the moniker “geoengineering” Marchetti, 1977), and developed throughout the 1990s and 2000s—therefore long before CDR came into policy debates. More recently, there have been advances in using the captured carbon (carbon capture and utilization CCU). The confusion between CCS and CDR is highly problematic given their similar names but different climate policy purposes (the former helping to reduce emissions, the latter compensating for residual emissions or contributing to net negative emission pathways). Careful consideration of locating CDR within the landscape of climate change responses is well established academically (Heyward, 2013), and the differentiation for policy has also been well articulated (Schenuit et al., 2023). While the risk of confusion remains, the possible impact is less than in 2018 and CDR has since become a well-established term.

The use of “Greenhouse Gas Removal” (GGR) followed early use of CDR in a categorization review by Boucher et al. (2014), and has been used almost exclusively in Europe, and especially in the UK (Royal Society, 2018). It was included in the glossary of the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (Masson-Delmotte et al., 2022), but omitted from the glossary of AR6 and considered only as a previously used term. Research considering the removal of other, short-lived, greenhouse gases (e.g., methane) from the atmosphere is still at a relatively early stage, with the direct comparison with CO2 removal not being particularly helpful given that the removal of short-lived gases has a similar impact on climate as reducing their emissions. It is of equal relevance that CDR approaches do not only differ in the processes that captures the CO2 from air or bodies of water, but also in the fate of the CO2 and how long it remains removed from the environment.

Academic journals play a vital role in disseminating scientific knowledge and fostering scholarly communication. They serve as platforms for researchers to share their findings, exchange ideas, and catalyze scientific progress. CDR is a field of interdisciplinary research, and it is essential for our section in Frontiers in Climate to embrace the broadest appeal to accommodate the needs of the scientific community. Furthermore, the use of “Negative Emission Technologies” can impose an unnecessary restriction to the potential authorship and readership of the journal as non-technical aspects such as policy, legal, and social implications are not limited to individual technologies. On the contrary, “Carbon Dioxide Removal” has a greater potential of engaging audience from a broader field of Social Sciences and Humanities. We believe that renaming the section to Carbon Dioxide Removal uses the most widely used terminology for what the section publishes.

Author contributions

PR: Conceptualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. RB: Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. DB: Writing—review and editing. MB: Writing—review and editing. DB: Writing—review and editing. MB: Writing—review and editing. MF: Writing—review and editing. SF: Writing—review and editing. AH: Writing—review and editing. CH: Writing—review and editing. BK: Writing—review and editing. PL: Writing—review and editing. DM: Writing—review and editing. RP: Writing—review and editing. DS: Writing—review and editing. SS: Writing—original draft. VS: Writing—review and editing. MV: Writing—review and editing. VV: Writing—review and editing. JW: Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Obersteiner, M., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, K. M. G. J., et al. (2010). The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Clim. Change 100, 195–202. doi: 10.1007/s10584-010-9832-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Azar, C. A., Lindgren, K., Larson, E., and Möllersten, K. (2006). Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass—costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Clim. Change 74, 47–79. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-3484-7

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Babiker, M., Berndes, G., Blok, K., Cohen, B., Cowie, A., Geden, O., et al. (2022). Cross-Sectoral Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Bellamy, R., and Osaka, S. (2020). Unnatural climate solutions? Nat. Clim. Change 10, 98–99. doi: 10.1038/s41558-019-0661-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Boucher, O., Forster, P. M., Gruber, N., Ha-Duong, M., Lawrence, M. G., Lenton, T. M., et al. (2014). Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. 5, 23–35. doi: 10.1002/wcc.261

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brinck, K., Poulsen, T. G., and Skov, H. (2011). Energy and greenhouse gas balances for a solid waste incineration plant: a case study. Waste Manag. Res. 29, S13–S19. doi: 10.1177/0734242X11413803

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology. (2019). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

Courvoisier T. J. European Academies Science Advisory Council Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina. (2018). Negative emission technologies: what role in meeting Paris Agreement targets? EASAC policy report. EASAC Secretariat, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Halle (Saale).

Google Scholar

European Commission (2022). Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals (No. COM/2022/672). Brussels: European Comission.

Google Scholar

Harvey, L. D. D. (2004). Declining temporal effectiveness of carbon sequestration: implications for compliance with the united national framework convention on climate change. Clim. Change 63, 259–290. doi: 10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018511.36935.e0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Heyward, C. (2013). Situating and abandoning geoengineering: a typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. APSC 46, 23–27. doi: 10.1017/S1049096512001436

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 25:245–284. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lecocq, F., Winkler, H., Daka, J., Fu, S., Gerber, J., Kartha, S., et al. (2022). “Mitigation and development pathways in the near-to mid-term,” in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Google Scholar

Lemoine, D. M., Fuss, S., Szolgayova, J., Obersteiner, M., and Kammen, D. M. (2012). The influence of negative emission technologies and technology policies on the optimal climate mitigation portfolio. Clim. Change 113, 141–162. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0269-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marchetti, C. (1977). On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Clim. Change 1, 59–68. doi: 10.1007/BF00162777

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., and Shukla, P. R. (2022). Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

McLaren, D. (2012). A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologies. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 90, 489–500. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nabuurs, G.-J. (2022). “Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU),” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. O., Edenhofer, R., Pichs-Madruga, Y., Sokona, E., Farahani, S., Kadner, K., Seyboth, et al. (Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press).

Google Scholar

NASEM (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Google Scholar

Renforth, P., and Wilcox, J. (2020). Editorial: The role of negative emission technologies in addressing our climate goals. Front. Clim. 2, 1. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2020.00001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Arango, J., Calvin, K., Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2022). “Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals,” in IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, et al. (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press).

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Royal Society (2018). Greenhouse Gas Removal. Royal Society (Great Britain).

Google Scholar

Schenuit, F., Boettcher, M., and Geden, O. (2023). “Carbon Management”: Opportunities and risks for ambitious climate policy (No. SWP Comment 2023/C 29). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.

Google Scholar

Schenuit, F., Colvin, R., Fridahl, M., McMullin, B., Reisinger, A., Sanchez, D. L., et al. (2021). Carbon dioxide removal policy in the making: assessing developments in 9 OECD cases. Front. Clim. 3, 638805. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2021.638805

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schenuit, F., and Geden, O. (2023). “Chapter 22: Carbon dioxide removal: climbing up the EU climate policy agenda,” in Handbook on European Union Climate Change Policy and Politics, eds. T., Rayner, K., Szulecki, A. J., Jordan, S., Oberthr (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing) 322–336. doi: 10.4337/9781789906981.00037

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Spector, N. A., and Dodge, B. F. (1946). Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. Trans. of Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42, 827–848.

Google Scholar

The Royal Society and Shepherd J.. (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.

Google Scholar

UNFCCC Secretariat (2015). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015 Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its twenty-first session. (Session and meeting reports No. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1). United Nations - Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), Paris Climate Change Conference - November, 2015.

Google Scholar

US Congress (2022). Federal Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act of 2022 (No. S. 4280). 117th Congress (2021–2022).

Google Scholar

Wilcox, J., Kolosz, B., and Freeman, J. (2021). Carbon Dioxide Removal Primer. Available online at: https://cdrprimer.org

Google Scholar

Keywords: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Negative Emission Technologies (NETs), climate change, Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR), nomenclature

Citation: Renforth P, Bellamy R, Beerling D, Boettcher M, Bonalumi D, Brandão M, Fridahl M, Fuss S, Hansson A, Heyward C, Kolosz B, Lamers P, McLaren D, Pomi R, Sanchez DL, Shayegh S, Sick V, Van der Spek M, Vishal V and Wilcox J (2023) Specialty grand challenge: renaming our section to “Carbon Dioxide Removal”. Front. Clim. 5:1279109. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2023.1279109

Received: 17 August 2023; Accepted: 25 August 2023;
Published: 18 September 2023.

Edited and reviewed by: Matthew Collins, University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2023 Renforth, Bellamy, Beerling, Boettcher, Bonalumi, Brandão, Fridahl, Fuss, Hansson, Heyward, Kolosz, Lamers, McLaren, Pomi, Sanchez, Shayegh, Sick, Van der Spek, Vishal and Wilcox. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Phil Renforth, p.renforth@hw.ac.uk

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.