The gap between a 1.7°C peak and a 1.5°C landing is roughly 440 to 660 billion tonnes of CO2 that someone has to pull back out of the air. That is a first-order estimate using the IPCC’s best guess of about 0.45°C of warming per 1,000 billion tonnes of CO2, and it understates the job, because as atmospheric CO2 falls the oceans give some back. So the number is a floor, not a ceiling.

That floor is the thread through all four of today’s stories. One is about demand. Three are about supply. And the supply stories disagree, in a useful way, about how to choose what gets built.

Overshoot turns the 1.5°C question into a drawdown question

Captain Drawdown’s daily CDR Log #295 works through what a peak of 1.7-1.8°C means. If the peak is baked in by current emissions trends, then “keeping 1.5°C alive” is no longer a mitigation slogan. It is a removal budget with a date attached. Every tenth of a degree above 1.5°C adds on the order of 220 billion tonnes of CO2 to the return trip.

For scale, the whole durable CDR industry has delivered a few million tonnes to date. The gap between the two numbers is five orders of magnitude.

This is also where the moral-hazard point has to be said plainly. None of this removal budget is a license to keep emitting. Every extra year of fossil emissions makes the peak higher and the return trip longer. CDR is for the residual, hard-to-abate tail and for the overshoot that is already locked in. And the budget math only works if the cutting happens first.

Europe is arguing about which removals to favour

The showdown between Kaja Voss and Alastair Collier is a fight over policy design, not over whether removal is needed. The question is whether Europe’s strategy should lean on BioCCS, meaning bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), or stay “tech neutral,” paying for any tonne of durable removal regardless of how it was made.

The case for BioCCS is readiness. Europe already has biomass power and heat plants, pulp mills and ethanol plants producing concentrated biogenic CO2. Bolting capture onto an existing flue is cheaper than building a direct air capture plant from scratch, and the tonnes can arrive this decade.

The case against is the biomass itself. Sustainable feedstock is finite, competes with other land uses, and the carbon accounting depends on forest and crop assumptions that are hard to verify. A policy that favours BioCCS risks locking in demand for wood and crops that the climate budget cannot afford.

Tech-neutral procurement avoids that lock-in and lets DAC, enhanced rock weathering (ERW, spreading crushed silicate rock on soil to absorb CO2) and mineralization compete on cost per verified tonne. The cost is that early support gets spread thin across methods that are not ready, and the cheapest tonne in a neutral auction may still be a biomass tonne.

My read: the disagreement is really about measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). A tech-neutral market only works if the verification standard is strict enough that a biogenic tonne and a geological tonne mean the same thing. Europe does not have that standard yet.

Canada is pitching geology and cheap clean power, not a method

Two Canada stories make the opposite argument. Instead of choosing a method, pick a place.

The mine story is about ultramafic rock. Nickel, chromite and diamond mines in Canada dig up magnesium-rich tailings that react with CO2 and turn it into carbonate minerals. The reaction happens on its own, slowly. The industrial play is to speed it up and get paid for the stored carbon alongside the metal. The attraction is that the rock is already crushed and already at the surface, so the hardest cost in rock-based removal is sunk by the mining operation. The caveat is that reaction rates in real tailings piles are still being measured in the field, and the tonnes per mine are modest next to the overshoot budget.

The DAC story, “Clear Skies,” makes the regional-advantage case. DAC needs a lot of low-carbon energy, nearby storage and a government willing to pay. Canada has hydro-heavy grids in Quebec and British Columbia, sedimentary basins in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and a federal investment tax credit that covers 60% of eligible DAC equipment cost. Deep Sky in Alberta is the test case. The limit is cold-weather performance of sorbent systems, which developers are only now reporting from Canadian winters.

The two strategies are asking different questions

Europe’s debate is “which method do we subsidize.” Canada’s is “where do we build, and let the method follow the site.” Both are trying to buy down cost on a budget that is five orders of magnitude short.

The honest answer is that neither can be judged until the tonnes are verified by a common standard. A BioCCS tonne in Sweden, a tailings tonne in Ontario and a DAC tonne in Alberta need to be counted the same way or buyers will keep paying for the cheapest paperwork rather than the cheapest carbon.

What’s next

Watch the EU’s certification framework for carbon removals as it moves from methodology drafts to operating rules. Whether it treats biogenic and geological storage as equivalent will settle the Voss-Collier debate more than any speech will.

And watch for the first published winter performance data from a Canadian DAC plant. If capture rates hold through January, the regional-advantage argument gets a number behind it. If they do not, the Canadian pitch shifts toward the mines.

Today’s Stories