Can we really suck up Carbon Dioxide?

Is carbon dioxide removal - aka "negative emissions" - going to save us from climate change? Or is it just a dangerous distraction from the action we need - cutting fossil fuels and building renewables? The truth is somewhere in between - we're going to need to remove some amounts of carbon dioxide, but we can't rely on negative emissions to solve all our climate change problems. So what are the technologies behind the headlines, and what do they mean for our future?

Support ClimateAdam on patreon:   / climateadam  

#ClimateChange

twitter:   / climateadam  
instagram:   / climate_adam  

==MORE INFO==

Why residual emissions matter right now https://www.nature.com/articles/s4155... IEA overview of negative emissions https://www.iea.org/commentaries/goin... zero of fossil fuel companies’ land requirements https://theconversation.com/forests-c... Can farming create negative emissions? https://journals.plos.org/climate/art... On nature-based negative emissions https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-can-na... Nature can’t handle all this negative emissions:https://theconversation.com/forests-c... Is BECCS negative emissions? https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-pos...

==THANKS==

Filming by Tamy Beyrouti
Warming map from NASA Climate Change