Having been told by the UN-IPCC that nature’s own carbon cycle isn’t up to the job any more, the manufactured problem for climate-obsessed governments seems to be the lack of any ‘carbon removal’ method that is (a) affordable and (b) effective, in terms of the scale of the supposed need. Such is the strange world of climate policy today.
– – –
New research involving the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests that countries’ current plans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere will not be enough to comply with the 1.5ºC warming limit set out under the Paris Agreement, says Phys.org.
Since 2010, the United Nations environmental organization UNEP has taken an annual measurement of the emissions gap—the difference between countries’ climate protection pledges and what is necessary to limit global heating to 1.5ºC, or at least below 2ºC [Talkshop comment – according to unproven IPCC climate theories].
The UNEP Emissions Gap Reports are clear: climate policy needs more ambition. This new study now explicitly applies this analytical concept to carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—the removal of the most important greenhouse gas, CO2, from the atmosphere.
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by the Berlin-based Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and involved an international team of scientists.
“In the Emissions Gap Reports, carbon removals are only accounted for indirectly,” said lead author Dr. William Lamb, of the MCC Applied Sustainability Science working group.
“After all, the usual benchmark for climate protection pledges is net emissions, i.e., emissions minus removals. We are now making transparent the specific ambition gap in scaling up removals.
. . .
Lead author Dr. William Lamb said:
“This much is clear: without a rapid reduction in emissions towards zero, across all sectors, the 1.5ºC limit will not be met under any circumstances.”
Full article here.
– – –
Image: Carbon cycle [credit: NASA Earth Observatory]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
involving the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests ….. read no further
Today: UK Government defeated in High Court over climate plans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68947242
Predictable.
Carbon-Eating Bacteria May Hold The Key To Decarbonization – May 02, 2024
A U.S.-based biotech firm has found a way to turn carbon emissions into ethanol and other chemicals using bacteria.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Carbon-Eating-Bacteria-May-Hold-The-Key-To-Decarbonization.html
But the firm in question is already in some financial trouble.
Carbon eating bacteria? Well, possibly – their site whittles on about carbon rich gasses. Carbon, carbon… Carbon monoxide might be bug fuel, methane, ethane etc, maybe.
“”You can find carbon dioxide from almost every steel mill and refinery. You can even make it from trash,” LanzaTech’s chief executive officer Jennifer Holmgren told The Wall Street Journal. “
Now we know it’s carbon based snake oil. Nothing eats CO2, it’s the energetic equivalent of burning ash to keep warm. Going from CO2 to fuel, plastics etc is endothermic. More energy needs to go in than was obtained from using the carbon in the first place, so what do these bugs actually live on?
Not going to work, apart from attracting subsidies from the gullible.
Saighdeer, you beat me to it. Can anyone believe any thing from UAE after the climate gate emails. UAE did not want to release any true collected data or their modelling factors, they wanted to stop anyone publishing contrary data or factual information, they did not want to show that most had no understanding of engineering subjects such as heat transfer and thermodynamics. Nothing has changed with UAE they should be shut down
What does that graphic represent?
[reply] the carbon cycle (see footnote to blog post)
No, Paris was two degrees. Alarmists saw that keeping under 2 was too easy so the IPCC produced SR1.5 in time for the failed Katowice COP – universally laughed at. Now only 8 years to give up coal! There is no scientific basis for 1.5C particularly since we don’t know the temperature for 1850. How many met stations in the southern hemisphere? None? So why doesn’t Prof Whoever just shut the f up.