Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

New peer-reviewed research lays out a case for quickly launching huge global investments to scale up a nascent and currently quite an expensive weapon against climate change: machines that pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The big picture: The Nature Communications study is a stab at carefully gaming out a "crisis" response to a huge problem: Nations' pace of cutting new emissions falls well short of what's needed to limit temperatures in line with the Paris deal goals.

  • It explores the costs and effects of massively building out "direct air capture" that companies like Carbon Engineering and Climeworks hope to deploy at a commercial scale.
  • DAC is among the tech that can theoretically complement renewables, electric cars, hydrogen, efficiency, and other tech that mitigates new emissions.

Why it matters: One big takeaway is that DAC can play an important role in limiting warming. But at the same time, even a mammoth build-out would be nowhere near a silver bullet!

  • Much stronger efforts to stem new emissions are needed to prevent warming from blowing past the Paris goal of holding temperature rise to 1.5ºC-2ºC above preindustrial levels.
  • "[D]espite an emergency DAC program that removes prodigious amounts of CO2 (multiple gigatonnes annually by 2050 and rising substantially thereafter), concurrent deep mitigation of emissions...is still required to meet the Paris goal of limiting warming to 2ºC," it finds.

By the numbers: The study models a crash program — starting at over $1 trillion annually — that would eventually spur deployment of as many as 12,700 plants by the end of the century.

  • If that occurred alongside current emissions-cutting policy trends, temperatures would still rise 2.4–2.5ºC in 2100.
  • The study also finds that massive DAC deployment will consume lots of energy, consuming around 9%-14% of global electricity use in 2075.

The intrigue: The paper from UC-San Diego researchers melds detailed modeling of DAC scale-up with the realpolitik of emissions policy.

The authors note, in essence, that DAC finance could have political legs because it's not a threat to "entrenched" industrial interests.

A couple of other takeaways...

  • Don't wait. The temperature-limiting potential is worth the upfront money because near-term deployments "enhance future scalability."
  • A crash program to begin widespread deployment is still a climate win even when paired with power grids that rely on natural gas.
  • "[T]he near-term political approach to crash deployment should seek not to maximize CO2 removals but rather to deploy many plants to push the technology down the learning curve—which does not require fully decarbonized energy supplies," it notes.

Catch up fast: The study arrives amid growing attention to negative emissions, or carbon removal, technologies overall.

  • A major 2018 UN study found that pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere — not only cutting new emissions — will be an important tool for limiting global temperature rise.
  • Corporate giants including Microsoft, Amazon, Chevron and others are investing in various forms of negative emissions companies and projects.

Go deeper

Amy Harder, author of Generate
Jan 21, 2021 - Energy & Environment

Big business backs key climate change regulations

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

Two of Washington’s biggest lobbying groups say they support the Biden administration’s plan to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas wells.

Why it matters: The shift, instigated by the Chamber of Commerce and American Petroleum Institute, is one of the most concrete signs of how corporations are beginning to support action on climate change in the face of pressure from investors, politicians and the public.

Dan Primack, author of Pro Rata
17 mins ago - Economy & Business

Scoop: Red Sox strike out on deal to go public

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The parent company of the Boston Red Sox and Liverpool F.C. has ended talks to sell a minority ownership stake to RedBall Acquisition, a SPAC formed by longtime baseball executive Billy Beane and investor Gerry Cardinale, Axios has learned from multiple sources. An alternative investment, structured more like private equity, remains possible.

Why it matters: Red Sox fans won't be able to buy stock in the team any time soon.