What Is Carbon Scrubbing? | Climate Change - Public Goods

25% off is in the bag.

Enter your email for 25% off your first order.

25% off is in the bag.

Enter your email for 25% off your first order.

What Is Carbon Scrubbing? | Climate Change

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a terrifying report that stated we may have as few as 12 years to slash our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change.

trees in a forest with fog

The report identifies a need to not only reduce emissions but to also remove carbon dioxide from the air to meet the goal of limiting global warming from our current temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius more.

The removal of carbon dioxide from the air is also known as “negative emissions” or “carbon scrubbing.” Last year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine delivered a report that highlights four existing methods of carbon dioxide removal that are ready for large-scale use at the cost of only $100 per ton of carbon dioxide or less.

Nonetheless, both this report and a report from the European Academies Science Advisory Council stated that these technologies likely will not be enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Still, the continued development of these carbon removal methods must be a critical priority in the fight against climate change.

Here are some of the most frequently mentioned approaches to carbon dioxide removal:

Planting Trees and Better Land Management

Globally, forests absorb around 30% of the world’s carbon emissions. A NASA-led study showed that tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tons out of the global absorption of 2.5 billion tons by forests. Properly managed reforestation and afforestation could greatly increase nature’s ability to help us fight climate change.

There are a number of organizations behind this effort that are doing great conservation, reforestation, advocacy and transformative land management work. You can contribute to this effort by supporting:

Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS)

This process involves using biofuels — any fuel that is derived from biomass — such as plant or algae material or animal waste, and the capture and storage of the CO2 emitted during the bioenergy process. Through this method, it would theoretically be possible to create a carbon negative system while producing heat, electricity and fuels.

By growing plants for biofuel that remove carbon dioxide as they grow, as well as capturing the carbon that is created when turning these plants into biofuel, BECCS could be a carbon negative method of energy and revenue generation.

Direct Air Capture of Carbon Dioxide

Companies have already successfully pulled this off. The Canadian company, Carbon Engineering, captures about one ton of carbon dioxide a day at its plant in British Columbia. The company is also developing its Air To Fuels technology that recycles atmospheric CO2 by turning it into a clean liquid fuel that can replace crude oil as a transportation fuel.

A key highlight of CE’s signature “Direct Air Capture” technology is that it’s designed to achieve large industrial-scaled carbon removal in any country and in a number of different climates. The company hopes to find global partners to build full-scale commercial direct air capture plants that transform CO2 into clean fuels.

In March the company received $68 million in private investment. Bill Gates and Chevron are among CE’s current investors.

Another revolutionary company called Climeworks currently has three direct air capture plants in Iceland, Switzerland and Italy that capture 1,100 tons of carbon dioxide per year. At its Iceland plant, the company is turning CO2 into basalt rock. In Switzerland Climeworks is using CO2 as a fertilizer in a greenhouse, and in Italy the company is converting CO2 into methane fuel for trucks.

Like CE, Climeworks’ technology filters CO2 from atmospheric air and chemically processes it to be stored or used to create the company’s impressive products. The process requires no water and is powered by low grade/waste heat. Its partners include the European Commission, Audi, and Lucerne University.

Climeworks’ most recent product announcement was for the launch of its ALIGAL 2 sparking water carbonator, made in partnership with Carbagas. It “actively reduce[s] the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by removing more CO2 than is used for the production of sparkling water.” This remarkable product made for everyday life allows you to extract CO2 from the atmosphere with every glass of sparkling water you make.

Innovations like these can allow us to implement carbon removal on both an industrial and personal level large enough to answer the urgency of carbon reduction in a meaningful way.

Technology Isn’t a Cure-All, But It’s a Start

These are just a few of the growing number of ways the world can tackle the urgency of carbon removal. The IPCC estimates that we need to remove 100-1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2100. In 2017 alone humanity produced 37.2 gigatons of CO2. Carbon removal technology can’t solve climate change on its own, but it is an undoubtedly necessary part of the globally coordinated policies and efforts we need.

You can support the effort to meet our carbon reduction goals by donating and volunteering with advocacy organizations like:

Additionally, spreading the word about companies like Carbon Engineering and Climeworks help build momentum around innovative carbon solutions. As a consumer, you have more power than you might think.

Download Our Free Guide to Sustainable Living.

From reducing waste to recycling and upcycling, our e-book shows simple ways to make choices you can feel good about.

Comments (3)

  • The over the top climate alarmism coming from the U.N. is unconscionable.
    There is no scientific indications that there is only 12 years left to make changes(or we will all die ‘sarcasm’)
    As a matter of fact a group of 500 scientists recently wrote a letter to the U.N. asking them to dial back the rhetoric and have a reasonable discussion on the climate change issue.


  • Hi Daniel,

    I read through the link you provided expecting to perhaps experience a side of the climate discussion I’ve yet to be aware of. Instead, I found language such as “aspergers is contagious… especially in girls”, “AI-brained (left leaning voters) are allergic to facts”, “Scientists get paid! This is astounding to me!”. Perhaps make an actual, legitimate argument backed by a credible, legitimate source and not the fever-dream diary of hysterical rantings from men that probably won’t be alive long enough to see the worst of climate change. Cheers, Daniel.

  • Hi Symantha,

    I believe we need to treat our planet better and that we are facing awful consequences as the planet warms. But I do need to defend Daniel here against your misleading comments. His link took me to the letter from the 500 scientists. They made points which are factually correct but do not disprove global warming. (Such as how the earth does experience cycles of warm and cold, wind turbines can kill birds and bats, etc). It was a mildly I interesting read.

    The link was not directly to the comments you mentioned. Those were made by people commenting on the article. I’m sure Daniel has no control over what idiots on the internet have to say. Please consider using facts to discredit someone, not ridiculous quotes taken from a third party. Lastly, near as I can tell the bit about scientists getting paid was sarcasm.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *