In-line with our values of sustainability at GENT London, we work with CLIMATE to give a percentage of every sale to help with the reduction of CO₂ emissions on our planet.
Carbon removal is critical to counteract climate change
To prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change, CLIMATE will aim to limit global average temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, which corresponds to reducing global annual CO₂ emissions from about 40 gigatons per year as of 2018, to net zero by 2050.
To accomplish this, the world will likely need to both radically reduce the new emissions we put into the air, and remove carbon already in the atmosphere.
Historical emissions via Global Carbon Project,1 "Current path" shows SSP4-6.0,2,3 removal pathways adapted from CICERO.4 For simplicity this chart only shows CO₂, though the modeled scenarios account for other greenhouse gas emissions, all of which will need to be reduced.
However, carbon removal is behind
Existing carbon removal solutions such as reforestation and soil carbon sequestration are important, but they alone are unlikely to scale to the size of the problem. New carbon removal technologies need to be developed—ones that have the potential to be high volume and low cost by 2050—even if they aren’t yet mature.
Today, carbon removal solutions face a chicken-and-egg problem. As early technologies, they’re more expensive, so don’t attract a critical mass of customers. But without wider adoption, they can’t scale production to become cheaper.
Early adopters can change the course of carbon removal
Early purchasers can help new carbon removal technologies get down the cost curve and up the volume curve. Experience with manufacturing learning and experience curves has shown repeatedly that deployment and scale beget improvement, a phenomenon seen across DNA sequencing, hard drive capacity, and solar panels.
This thinking shaped our initial commitment and first purchases. If a broad coalition of like-minded buyers commits substantial investment, we’re optimistic that we can shift the trajectory of the industry and increase the likelihood the world has the portfolio of solutions needed.
Stylized representation of experience curves from the Santa Fe Institute.5
Portfolio and scientific advisors
CLIMATE works with a multidisciplinary group of top scientific experts to help find and evaluate the most promising carbon removal technologies. Explore the growing portfolio of early-stage carbon removal projects.
Climeworks uses renewable geothermal energy and waste heat to capture CO₂ directly from the air, concentrate it, and permanently sequester it underground in basaltic rock formations with Carbfix. While it’s early in scaling, it’s permanent, easy to measure, and the capacity of this approach is theoretically nearly limitless.
Project Vesta captures CO₂ by using an abundant, naturally occurring mineral called olivine. Ocean waves grind down the olivine, increasing its surface area. As the olivine breaks down, it captures atmospheric CO₂ from within the ocean and stabilises it as limestone on the seafloor.
CarbonCure injects CO₂ into fresh concrete, where it mineralizes and is permanently stored while improving the concrete’s compressive strength. Today they source waste CO₂, but represent a promising platform technology for permanent CO₂ storage, a key component of future carbon removal systems.
Charm Industrial has created a novel process for preparing and injecting bio-oil into geologic storage. Bio-oil is produced from biomass and maintains much of the carbon that was captured naturally by the plants. By injecting it into secure geologic storage, they’re making the carbon storage permanen
Citations
Global Carbon Project. FF&I Emissions: Gilfillan, D., Marland, G., Boden, T. and Andres, R.: Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, available at: https://energy.appstate.edu/CDIAC, last access: 27 September 2019. Land-use change emissions: Average of two bookkeeping models: Houghton, R. A. and Nassikas, A. A.: Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850-2015, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 31, 456-472, 2017; Hansis, E., Davis, S. J., and Pongratz, J.: Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 29, 1230-1246, 2015.
© SSP Public Database (Version 2.0) https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb. SSP4: Katherine Calvin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Leon Clarke, James Edmonds, Jiyong Eom, Corinne Hartin, Sonny Kim, Page Kyle, Robert Link, Richard Moss, Haewon McJeon, Pralit Patel, Steve Smith, Stephanie Waldhoff, Marshall Wise, The SSP4: A world of deepening inequality, Global Environmental Change, Volume 42, 2017, Pages 284-296, SSN 0959-3780.
Hausfather, Z., & Peters, G. P. (2020). Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
Peters, G. (2018, September 4). Stylised pathways to “well below 2°C.” CICERO. https://www.cicero.oslo.no/no/posts/klima/stylised-pathways-to-well-below-2c
Santa Fe Institute: Performance Curve Database, http://pcdb.santafe.edu. Nagy, B., Farmer, J. D., Bui, Q. M., & Trancik, J. E. (2013). Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress. PLoS ONE, 8(2).