Someone asked me recently how I'd respond to criticisms of carbon dioxide removal (CDR), specifically:

1. That CDR receives disproportionately large funding compared to carbon reduction mechanisms like renewable energy.
2. That climate criminals use CDR as an excuse to continue heating the planet.

To start, I need to set the foundation that CDR is an absolute requirement for humanity to escape the climate crisis. Even if humanity were to stop emitting new CO2 tomorrow, the planet would continue to heat because of the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. Someone has to remove that carbon. The IPCC explicitly recognized this in their 2018 report, removal isn't optional; it's required.

Is investment in CDR disproportionate compared to carbon reduction mechanisms? No, because the price of carbon removal is disproportionately high today. Investment must be made in order to reduce the long term cost of CDR. Additionally, it’s not fair to compare carbon reduction with carbon removal because they serve two different purposes. Nor are they mutually exclusive. We need both.

Are climate criminals using CDR as an excuse to continue heating the planet? Absolutely yes, but the only mechanism to stop them is government, which has been captured by the same class of climate criminals. We cannot allow this regrettable side effect to slow down the required investment into CDR.

So:

1. CDR does not receive disproportionately large investment.
2. Climate criminals are using CDR as an excuse to heat the planet but we don’t have the power to stop them.