The removal of carbon dioxide gas from the atmosphere is seen by some as crucial to compensate for the emissions from human activities that are, it is claimed, difficult to decarbonise – for instance, those generated in aviation and agriculture. However, an interesting Quadrature Climate Foundation (QCF) overview back in 2024 noted that since the concentration of CO2 in the air is about 0.04% it is ‘very difficult & correspondingly costly to do CDR’. Ii added it is ‘scientifically, environmentally & economically more effective to avoid a ton of emissions than it is to remove it from the atmosphere’. So, CDR should ‘not be used as an excuse to continue with business as usual’ and ‘net negative emissions technologies should only be deployed to compensate for residual emissions after abatement, or as a means of addressing legacy emissions’. So though it thought Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) was important, especially natural as opposed to engineered CDR, it wa...
Some have argued that the wide use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will require substantial amounts of energy and that this will overwhelm any environmental gains from improved energy use efficiency and emission reduction. However, there are other views. LSE's Grantham Institute and Systemiq produced a study last year claiming that AI applications in just three sectors (power, food, and mobility) could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 3.2 to 5.4 billion metric tons annually by 2035. That would more than offset all projected data centre emissions from AI across the entire global economy in the same period, and move us 36% closer to an ambitious 2035 emissions reduction trajectory versus business as usual. A recent overview of the issues said that ‘This would be a huge win, and powered by only three sectors’. But it also reported that a more recent paper from MIT is much more cautious: ‘AI is likely to worsen climate change even if it stimulates large emi...