Home » Environment

Carbon Dioxide Removal: The IPCC’s Last Climate Resort

The IPCC underscores carbon dioxide removal as a crucial but risky fallback for climate stability, urging action before reliance on last-ditch technologies.

By Sneha Tete, Integrated MA, Certified Relationship Coach

Created on Sep 27, 2025

The IPCC underscores carbon dioxide removal as a crucial but risky fallback for climate stability, urging action before reliance on last-ditch technologies.

Introduction: Humanity’s Climate Crossroads

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its latest comprehensive assessment, draws an unmistakable line: drastic emission reductions are now mandatory, yet even the most aggressive abatement will not be enough on its own. The world faces a hard truth—carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and natural systems must be deployed at scale to keep global warming within internationally agreed limits.

As emissions from human activities keep accumulating in the atmosphere, the window for safe and sustainable climate futures narrows. The IPCC and leading scientists agree: every credible scenario limiting warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C depends, to some extent, on pulling carbon out of the air—sometimes as a last resort for overshoot scenarios, but increasingly as a core mitigation pillar.

The IPCC’s Stark Message: Act Now—Or Rely on Risky Options

The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, released after years of global research, combines sober warnings with paths for hope. The report details climate consequences already experienced—ranging from deadly heatwaves and wildfires to irreversible ecosystem losses. In every scenario, the panel stresses two points:

Emissions must peak by 2025 and fall by at least 43% by 2030 to keep 1.5°C within reach.
Every solution is needed, including both emissions cuts and expansive carbon removal.

This means even full-scale decarbonization leaves residual emissions—from sectors like agriculture and industry—that must be balanced with removals. The IPCC is clear: all 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios rely on significant CDR to counteract these remaining emissions and, potentially, to remove past overshoot of CO₂.

Yet CDR is no silver bullet. The IPCC and scientists worldwide warn: “Mitigation must remain the priority.” Delays in action today could saddle society with costly, disruptive, and ecologically risky solutions tomorrow.

Why Can’t Emissions Cuts Alone Save Us?

Despite ambitious clean energy targets and record investments in renewables, the simple math of the carbon budget is sobering:

Atmospheric CO₂ has increased to levels unseen for millions of years, driving global temperatures upward.
Even rapid and deep emissions reductions leave residual sources—especially from food production, livestock, industry, and long-lived goods.
The climate system’s inertia means that past emissions will continue warming the planet, even as we decarbonize.

The takeaway: To avoid temperature overshoot, any scenario limiting warming below catastrophic levels must not just slow emissions but actively reduce the CO₂ already in the air. This is where both natural and technological carbon removal enter the equation.

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Toolbox

Carbon dioxide removal refers to all processes that take CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it either in nature or engineered systems. Methods fall into two main categories:

Conventional (Natural) CDR: Restoring and expanding ecosystems to boost their natural carbon sink capacity. This includes:

Reforestation and afforestation
Wetland and peatland restoration
Regenerative agriculture and improved soil management

Novel (Technological) CDR: Engineering approaches that capture and store CO₂ more permanently or on lands unsuitable for agriculture, such as:

Direct Air Capture (DAC) machines that chemically remove CO₂ from ambient air
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)—burning biomass for energy and capturing the CO₂ emissions for underground storage
Mineralization: speeding up natural rock weathering to lock away CO₂ in stone
Ocean-based removal, such as seaweed farming or enhanced alkalinity

How Much Carbon Needs Removing?

The numbers are sobering:

By 2050, 7–9 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year must be removed to hit Paris Agreement targets.
Current natural CDR practices remove just ~2 Gt CO₂ per year, most from forests and soils.
All novel CDR combined today removes only about 0.0013 Gt CO₂ annually—far from what’s needed.

The Spectrum of Solutions: Benefits and Pitfalls

Every CDR method brings a distinct set of advantages, limitations, and trade-offs:

Approach	Potential Benefits	Main Drawbacks/Risks
Reforestation & Afforestation	Cost-effective, supports biodiversity, community co-benefits	Carbon reversal risk (wildfire, disease); competition with food production; land rights concerns
Wetland/Peatland Restoration	Restores critical habitats, stores carbon long-term	Requires ongoing management; sensitive to water conditions
Soil Carbon Sequestration	Improves soil health, agricultural yields	Verification challenges; risk of loss through tilling or drought
Direct Air Capture (DAC)	Permanent storage; deployable at scale independent of land	High energy cost; expensive; technology still nascent
BECCS	Produces renewable energy while removing carbon	May displace food crops; impacts water use and biodiversity
Mineralization	Safe, permanent carbon storage	Slow process; mining impacts; high cost at scale

Natural vs. Novel CDR: Complementary, Not Competing

Some advocates view technological CDR and natural carbon sinks as competitors for funding or policy attention. The IPCC’s research, however, makes clear: both are essential.

Natural solutions are ready now, can scale quickly, and come with added benefits for water, biodiversity, and communities. However, climate change itself puts forests, grasslands, and soils at risk, potentially reversing gains.
Novel technologies promise more permanence and independence from land but require massive investment, lower costs, and social acceptance to matter at scale.

Notably, some CDR approaches—particularly BECCS, large reforestation, or ocean-based interventions—can compete with food security, indigenous land rights, and ecosystem services. Responsible deployment demands consultation and planning at every step.

Risks and Uncertainties of Carbon Removal

The IPCC issues a blunt warning: Society lacks both the technology and a full understanding of CDR at the scales needed. Key challenges include:

Permanence: Will carbon stay locked away for centuries or could it return?
Monitoring and Verification: How can we accurately measure what’s truly removed?
Ecological Side Effects: Land, water, and resource competition; risks to biodiversity; unforeseen consequences of large-scale interventions.
Social Justice: Large CDR projects could endanger food security, affect vulnerable communities, or spark land-use conflicts if implemented without robust consultation.

What’s more, betting on CDR as a future “undo” button for climate change risks political and moral hazard—justifying delays in urgent emission cuts in favor of unproven future solutions. The IPCC’s guidance could not be clearer: “Mitigation comes first. CDR is a supplement, not a substitute.”

Policy and Investment: The Current Landscape

Governments, investors, and industry have ramped up support for carbon removal—as shown by increased R&D funding and pilot projects worldwide. Yet rapid deployment faces the following barriers:

Technological Maturity: Most novel CDR is limited to demonstration and early deployment stages.
Cost: DAC and BECCS remain orders of magnitude more expensive per ton than most emissions reductions measures.
Policy Frameworks: Robust, science-based accounting and regulation is still catching up.
Global Coordination: Ensuring efforts are equitable, do not endanger food or ecosystems, and benefit vulnerable populations.

The Bottom Line: Relying on CDR as a “Last Option”

The IPCC’s starkest scenarios show CDR as humanity’s last tool should mitigation falter and the world overshoot its carbon budget. In that world, dangerous warming, ecosystem upheaval, and costly remediation become unavoidable—and reliance on CDR only grows riskier and more expensive.

Immediate, deep emissions reductions offer the safest path—but the “last resort” must be ready.
Society must balance investments, governance, and research to scale CDR responsibly—without using it as an excuse to delay urgent climate action.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Why does the IPCC include carbon dioxide removal in all climate scenarios?

A: Because even with the fastest possible reductions, some emissions will persist—especially from hard-to-abate sectors. Removing CO₂ helps balance the climate budget and is essential to meet 1.5°C or 2°C goals.

Q: Is relying on carbon removal risky?

A: Yes. Overdependence on CDR risks using unproven solutions, shifting burdens to future generations, and introducing new ecological and social risks. The IPCC stresses mitigation first, CDR as complementary.

Q: Are natural or engineered CDR solutions better?

A: Both are needed. Natural solutions offer lower cost and additional benefits but face risks of reversal. Engineered methods are more permanent but expensive and not yet at scale.

Q: How much CDR do we need each year?

A: Current reports estimate 7–9 gigatonnes CO₂ must be removed annually by 2050 to meet climate targets. Presently, less than a third of that is being achieved, mostly by natural means.

Q: What can ordinary citizens do?

A: Push policymakers for aggressive emissions cuts, support ecosystem restoration, encourage ethical investment in carbon removal, and demand transparency to ensure CDR complements—not replaces—real mitigation.

References & Further Reading

IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023)
“The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal” (Smith et al., Oxford, 2023)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) State of the Science Factsheet

References

Author

Sneha TeteBeauty & Lifestyle Writer

Sneha is a relationships and lifestyle writer with a strong foundation in applied linguistics and certified training in relationship coaching. She brings over five years of writing experience to thebridalbox, crafting thoughtful, research-driven content that empowers readers to build healthier relationships, boost emotional well-being, and embrace holistic living.

Read full bio of Sneha Tete