Peter Droege doesn’t mince words. Writing in klimareporter.de, the director of the Liechtenstein Institute for Strategic Development calls Germany’s publicly funded CDR research programs — “CDR terra” and “CDR mare” — a dangerous distraction from the real drivers of the climate crisis.
His argument boils down to four points. Each one deserves a straight answer.
Critique #1: The Math Doesn’t Work
Droege argues that the maximum conceivable CDR capacity in Germany can’t even close the gap on the country’s so-called “unavoidable” residual emissions — emissions that remain even under Germany’s already insufficient climate targets.
He’s partly right. Germany alone won’t remove its way to net zero with domestic CDR capacity. No single country will. But that’s not actually the argument anyone serious is making. CDR is a global portfolio problem. Iceland stores COâ‚‚ from European DAC plants. Enhanced weathering works best in tropical soils. The question isn’t whether Germany can do it all domestically — it’s whether Germany should be investing in CDR science so it can contribute to a global solution. The answer is obviously yes.
Critique #2: CDR Enables Delay
This is the “moral hazard” argument, and it’s the most common one leveled at carbon removal: if companies and governments believe CDR will clean up after them, they’ll drag their feet on cutting emissions.
Fair concern, wrong conclusion. The IPCC’s own scenarios require both deep emissions cuts and large-scale CDR to limit warming to 1.5°C or even 2°C (IPCC AR6 WGIII, 2022). We can’t choose one. Arguing against CDR because some actors might misuse it is like arguing against seatbelts because some drivers might speed. The fix is better regulation, not abandoning a necessary technology.
Critique #3: Some Methods Harm Nature
Droege warns that biological CDR methods — afforestation with monoculture plantations, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) — compete with natural ecosystems and damage biodiversity. He’s also skeptical of ocean-based approaches.
On monoculture plantations and BECCS: agreed. These concerns are well-documented and shared by many CDR researchers. The field has largely moved beyond simplistic tree-planting narratives, and BECCS faces serious land-use constraints (Fuss et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2018). But lumping all CDR together — enhanced weathering, DAC, biochar, ocean alkalinity enhancement — under “disturbing nature” ignores the massive diversity of approaches. Enhanced weathering on existing agricultural land doesn’t compete with forests. DAC on volcanic rock in Iceland isn’t displacing ecosystems.
Critique #4: Tech Fixes Are a Dead End
DAC is too expensive, too energy-intensive, and too dependent on resources that should go toward the energy transition, Droege argues.
Today’s costs aren’t tomorrow’s. Solar electricity cost $76/watt in 1977. It costs roughly $0.20/watt now. DAC is expensive at ~$400–1,000/tonne today, but costs have already fallen significantly from early prototypes, and every major analysis projects continued decline with scale (IEA, 2022). Writing off a technology because version 1.0 is expensive is a strange position for anyone who’s watched renewable energy evolve.
The Real Takeaway
Droege’s piece is worth reading because the skepticism is grounded in real concerns — scale limits, moral hazard, ecosystem risks. These aren’t strawman arguments. They’re the questions that keep honest CDR researchers up at night.
But his conclusion — that CDR is fundamentally a dangerous distraction — doesn’t follow from his premises. The climate crisis demands emission cuts and carbon removal and biosphere restoration. It’s a three-legged stool, and kicking out any leg means we fall.
The strongest move isn’t to abandon CDR research. It’s to fund it rigorously, regulate it honestly, and never — ever — let it become an excuse to slow down on emissions cuts.
Original article: klimareporter.de (German). Peter Droege is the director of the Liechtenstein Institute for Strategic Development and former president of Eurosolar.