Benefit-cost ratios of carbon dioxide removal strategies

被引:0
|
作者
Cael, B. B. [1 ]
Goodwin, P. [2 ]
Pearce, C. R. [1 ]
Stainforth, D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Natl Oceanog Ctr, Southampton, England
[2] Univ Southampton, Southampton, England
[3] London Sch Econ, London, England
基金
欧盟地平线“2020”; 英国自然环境研究理事会; 英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会;
关键词
climate change; carbon dioxide removal; net zero; cost-benefit analysis;
D O I
10.1088/1748-9326/acffdc
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
All pathways to achieving the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C or 2 degrees C require the large-scale removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Many CO2 removal (CDR) strategies have been proposed, which vary widely in both price per ton of CO2 removed and storage timescale of this removed CO2, as well as mechanism, maturity, scalability, and other factors. However, it has not yet been thoroughly assessed whether the benefits, in terms of climate change-related damages avoided, of CDR deployment exceeds their cost at current reported prices and storage timescales, or what cost is required for CDR strategies with a given storage timescale to provide net benefits and how these depend on socioeconomic assumptions. For CDR strategies that have long storage ( > 500 year) timescales, these questions reduce to whether its price is lower than the social cost of carbon, but here we show for CDR strategies that operate over shorter timescales they also depend on the duration of storage. We demonstrate that for CDR strategies with reported storage timescales of decades to centuries, the benefits of their deployment outweigh their reported costs under middle-of-the-road socioeconomic assumptions, and in some cases their benefits still outweigh their costs under optimistic socioeconomic assumptions. Overall, the benefit-cost ratios of the evaluated CDR strategies vary by more than an order of magnitude, and are strongly influenced by both price and storage timescale. Our results provide a framework that can be used to assess and compare different CDR strategies quantitatively to help guide future research, development, and policy efforts.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Providing Access to Urban Green Spaces: A Participatory Benefit-Cost Analysis in Spain
    Garcia de Jalon, Silvestre
    Chiabai, Aline
    Tague, Alyvia Mc
    Artaza, Naiara
    de Ayala, Amaia
    Quiroga, Sonia
    Kruize, Hanneke
    Suarez, Cristina
    Bell, Ruth
    Taylor, Timothy
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 17 (08)
  • [22] The role of carbon dioxide removal in net-zero emissions pledges
    Iyer, Gokul
    Clarke, Leon
    Edmonds, Jae
    Fawcett, Allen
    Fuhrman, Jay
    Mcjeon, Haewon
    Waldhoff, Stephanie
    ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE, 2021, 2
  • [23] Governing Carbon Dioxide Removal in the UK: Lessons Learned and Challenges Ahead
    Lezaun, Javier
    Healey, Peter
    Kruger, Tim
    Smith, Stephen M. M.
    FRONTIERS IN CLIMATE, 2021, 3
  • [24] The Use of a Social Cost of Carbon in Canadian Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Heyes, Anthony
    Morgan, Dylan
    Rivers, Nicholas
    CANADIAN PUBLIC POLICY-ANALYSE DE POLITIQUES, 2013, 39 : S67 - S79
  • [25] A review of commercialisation mechanisms for carbon dioxide removal
    Hickey, Conor
    Fankhauser, Sam
    Smith, Stephen M.
    Allen, Myles
    FRONTIERS IN CLIMATE, 2023, 4
  • [26] A pre-intervention benefit-cost methodology to justify investments in workplace health
    Rickards, Jeremy
    Putnam, Carol
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WORKPLACE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, 2012, 5 (03) : 210 - +
  • [27] The future of carbon dioxide removal must be transdisciplinary
    Zelikova, Tamara Jane
    INTERFACE FOCUS, 2020, 10 (05)
  • [28] Benefit-cost analysis of vaccination of horses as a strategy to control equine monocytic ehrlichiosis
    Atwill, ER
    Mohammed, HO
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 208 (08) : 1295 - &
  • [29] Public support for carbon dioxide removal strategies: the role of tampering with nature perceptions
    Wolske, Kimberly S.
    Raimi, Kaitlin T.
    Campbell-Arvai, Victoria
    Hart, P. Sol
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2019, 152 (3-4) : 345 - 361
  • [30] Introduction to a special issue entitled Perspectives on Implementing Benefit-Cost Analysis in Climate Assessment
    Sussman, Fran
    Grambsch, Anne
    Li, Jia
    Weaver, Christopher P.
    JOURNAL OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS, 2014, 5 (03): : 333 - 346