If I were not already committed to the necessity of fundamental change in our culture, I might
be frightened away by this. My first impression is that there's no way this can be even planned, let alone implemented without strong governance and leadership in all sectors both nationally and internationally. This should be required reading for all students. I shall flag it for my grandkids. Thank you for this enormous effort.
Good insights although I take issue with "targeted programs for a just transition," most of which seem to target the highest paid, most resilient workers (i.e. your example of offshore oil pros). These programs will naturally favor better paid, more politically powerful groups, leaving out the vastly larger mass of lower paid, more vulnerable folk who'll see only costs. A much better approach, in my humble view, would be much broader economic redistribution aimed at lower-income people. Offer EVs swapped for gas guzzlers, and heat pumps for furnaces. Offer lower income rural folk support to move to cities where they'll prosper more and pollute less. Subsidize home builders who build in cities while tightening regulations on those who don't.
Some historical comment around other similar transitions (horse to train to car...whale oil to electricity...etc.) would help frame what's at stake, I think. This transition would be many times bigger in magnitude, of course.
Oops, one more comment. In the text to a linked article in your post, you refer to the AR6 figure as showing that global mean surface temperatures will start to fall once we stop emitting CO2. Sure, but a better conclusion from the figure is that global surface temperatures will likely start to fall shortly after atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak, then decline further with additional reductions in emissions. Given the currently high removal rates by the natural carbon sinks (greater than 20 GT CO2/year), which again operate in direct proportion to atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, we only need to achieve modest annual reduction rates in emissions to get to peak atmospheric CO2 within a few decades. With atmospheric CO2 levels then falling thereafter as annual reductions continue. We don't need to get to zero emissions and we don't need DAC to make this happen; we need to continue develop8ng & replacing 20th Century fossil energy technologies with economically-preferable, 21st Century, low- and zero-carbon energy technologies. :-)
I also have an AI developed analysis of atmospheric carbon reduction technologies, none of which are practically scalable. AND, I hope you emphasize the climate migration driver of political instability as one of the closest near-in problems, which within the US will be driven by the consequences chain from wildfires and flooding to property insurance spikes to property value collapse to mortgage abandonment to banking collapse. This is an oil spot spreading dynamic already appearing like a measles outbreak... Again, timing is a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Important point not given sufficient attention. Impact of Iran War could be assessed. Timing issues need attention. Gemini gave me a 10 year projection of oil&gas industry demand, price, cash flow and reserves value. Contact me at ron2randall@gmail.com for copy and discussion. If you are near NYC, I would like you to consider giving a talk at my club.
Hi Andrew, thank you for an engaging read! I wonder if this may be inaccurate:
"As electric vehicles improve and battery costs fall (technology risk), governments implement EV mandates and phase out internal combustion engines — Norway by 2025, the UK by 2030 (policy risk)."
We still sell fossil fuel cars here in Norway, though the vast majority (95-96%) are electric. There was never a mandate, just a "goal" of reaching a 100% EV share of new cars by 2025 – however, this goal has to a large extent been reached even in the absence of a mandate. As a policy tool, you could perhaps focus on EV subsidies instead. These are still in play, though they have been reduced in recent years, since public transport and "soft mobility" are after all more climate friendly than cars.
Great work here! One tiny suggested edit for you to consider. When you discuss the likely decline in the value of fossil fuel assets, you say "...that are worth trillions..." - I wonder if the sentence would be more accurate if you added the word "currently" before "worth."
Did you notice the new research on BECCS? It will increase atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades, and won't actually lower CO2 levels for 150 years, or so.
Hi Andrew -- For a combination of thermodynamic and technoeconomic reasons, DAC will be far more expensive than biological methods (which include BECCS and BiCRS). Based on the chemical exergy of CO2 being ~20 kJ/mole, it's easily shown that DAC will be more than $100/tonne, and it's currently hard to get to under $200/tonne, just for the capture part.
I'll also add that biomass-based processes don't have to involve combustion, which is an exergetically-inefficient process, and which leads to having to separate CO2 from nitrogen. Steam reforming of bio-methane produces hydrogen at a few dollars per kg H2, along with a high concentration CO2 stream. DOE's "Roads to Removal" document includes considerable discussion of BiCRS pathways for hydrogen.
The other thing that shouldn't be ignored is that the natural sinks continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at rates that are directly proportional to the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2.
Recent findings on the natural sinks include that the ocean's biological carbon pump, which directly transports carbon from near-surface water into the dense interior of the ocean, is substantially stronger than had recently been assumed, and that the ocean has consistently pulled more CO2 from the atmosphere than the land. See Friedlingstein et.al. 2025.
Drawdown rates from the natural sinks have increased from about +10 GT/year in the 1970s to over +20 GT/year currently based on higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and, contrary to a popular talking point, would continue to operate at high levels -- far, far higher than we could remove CO2 using DAC technology -- even if we stopped anthropogenic CO2 overnight, declining only as atmospheric levels fall. CO2 doesn't simply stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Delegates that drew up the 2015 Paris Agreement rejected a goal of hitting net-zero by 2050 but did specifically include calls for a) peaking anthropogenic emissions as soon as possible and b) achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removals by sinks in the second half of the century. Bottom line here is that we are getting substantial help on these two explicit objectives through the combination of reduced emissions by developing and deploying advanced, low- and zero-carbon technologies and continued drawdown by the natural sinks. We could readily achieve both a) and b) through additional technology advances providing modest anthropogenic emission reductions of just a few percent per year.
We really should be talking now about hitting a target, like the 350 ppm CO2 target that was proposed by Hansen several years ago. Again, the natural sinks can help us do this, but we really have to make sure that we protect them.
As you know, the transition to a lower carbon economy is well underway. If it's successful, the upcoming conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels will accelerate it. The tragedy is that the fossil fuel industry, with the support of the current administration, is doubling down, increasing the total value of assets that will become stranded, when they should be phasing new investments out.
I'm skeptical that either DAC or BECCS will be capable of scaling to the point of being meaningful. Increased ocean alkalinity and enhanced chemical weathering may be more effective because they do have the ability to scale without using land area needed for forests and agriculture, although more research is needed on both before deployment can be considered.
This is really useful! I wonder just about word choice in this one phrase: “once the market fully accepts that these assets cannot be produced due to climate policies, their value could drop to zero rapidly.” I wonder whether it’s climate *policies* that will prevent fossil fuel reserves from being burned or whether it’s climate change itself? I mean, strictly speaking it would be policies, but isn’t the point that leaving fossil fuels in the ground is in some sense necessary due to the reality of climate change, making the systemic economic risk climate change itself as much as any climate policy. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it feels like an important nuance to me. Is there a way to acknowledge both elements of risk so that the policies don’t seem like the singular event that will destroy the economy?
The largest pile of stranded assets will be windmills and solar panels, and their band-aid, batteries, decaying at the bottom of landfills when nuclear gets built out as baseload and clean burning natural gas fills the need for dispatchable resources. There is no place on the modern grid for chaotic, dilute sources of energy.
If I were not already committed to the necessity of fundamental change in our culture, I might
be frightened away by this. My first impression is that there's no way this can be even planned, let alone implemented without strong governance and leadership in all sectors both nationally and internationally. This should be required reading for all students. I shall flag it for my grandkids. Thank you for this enormous effort.
Fossil industry exploiters made enormous profits and damages during the past decades. Now it's over. It's great time the share the price of repairs.
Good insights although I take issue with "targeted programs for a just transition," most of which seem to target the highest paid, most resilient workers (i.e. your example of offshore oil pros). These programs will naturally favor better paid, more politically powerful groups, leaving out the vastly larger mass of lower paid, more vulnerable folk who'll see only costs. A much better approach, in my humble view, would be much broader economic redistribution aimed at lower-income people. Offer EVs swapped for gas guzzlers, and heat pumps for furnaces. Offer lower income rural folk support to move to cities where they'll prosper more and pollute less. Subsidize home builders who build in cities while tightening regulations on those who don't.
Some historical comment around other similar transitions (horse to train to car...whale oil to electricity...etc.) would help frame what's at stake, I think. This transition would be many times bigger in magnitude, of course.
Oops, one more comment. In the text to a linked article in your post, you refer to the AR6 figure as showing that global mean surface temperatures will start to fall once we stop emitting CO2. Sure, but a better conclusion from the figure is that global surface temperatures will likely start to fall shortly after atmospheric CO2 concentrations peak, then decline further with additional reductions in emissions. Given the currently high removal rates by the natural carbon sinks (greater than 20 GT CO2/year), which again operate in direct proportion to atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, we only need to achieve modest annual reduction rates in emissions to get to peak atmospheric CO2 within a few decades. With atmospheric CO2 levels then falling thereafter as annual reductions continue. We don't need to get to zero emissions and we don't need DAC to make this happen; we need to continue develop8ng & replacing 20th Century fossil energy technologies with economically-preferable, 21st Century, low- and zero-carbon energy technologies. :-)
I also have an AI developed analysis of atmospheric carbon reduction technologies, none of which are practically scalable. AND, I hope you emphasize the climate migration driver of political instability as one of the closest near-in problems, which within the US will be driven by the consequences chain from wildfires and flooding to property insurance spikes to property value collapse to mortgage abandonment to banking collapse. This is an oil spot spreading dynamic already appearing like a measles outbreak... Again, timing is a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Important point not given sufficient attention. Impact of Iran War could be assessed. Timing issues need attention. Gemini gave me a 10 year projection of oil&gas industry demand, price, cash flow and reserves value. Contact me at ron2randall@gmail.com for copy and discussion. If you are near NYC, I would like you to consider giving a talk at my club.
Hi Andrew, thank you for an engaging read! I wonder if this may be inaccurate:
"As electric vehicles improve and battery costs fall (technology risk), governments implement EV mandates and phase out internal combustion engines — Norway by 2025, the UK by 2030 (policy risk)."
We still sell fossil fuel cars here in Norway, though the vast majority (95-96%) are electric. There was never a mandate, just a "goal" of reaching a 100% EV share of new cars by 2025 – however, this goal has to a large extent been reached even in the absence of a mandate. As a policy tool, you could perhaps focus on EV subsidies instead. These are still in play, though they have been reduced in recent years, since public transport and "soft mobility" are after all more climate friendly than cars.
Great work here! One tiny suggested edit for you to consider. When you discuss the likely decline in the value of fossil fuel assets, you say "...that are worth trillions..." - I wonder if the sentence would be more accurate if you added the word "currently" before "worth."
Did you notice the new research on BECCS? It will increase atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades, and won't actually lower CO2 levels for 150 years, or so.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e6153da18c8fa347879ab0d98dde5a811ac3d50f6c475d845464985f6c79caf5JmltdHM9MTc3NjkwMjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3e239028-a0af-6a54-0ca6-8610a1836b0d&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmF0dXJlLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlcy9zNDE4OTMtMDI2LTAxODE3LTg
Article
Published: 20 April 2026
Decades of increased emissions from forest-fuelled BECCS
Timothy D. Searchinger, Liqing Peng, Daniela Russi & Charles Canham
Nature Sustainability (2026)
Hi Andrew -- For a combination of thermodynamic and technoeconomic reasons, DAC will be far more expensive than biological methods (which include BECCS and BiCRS). Based on the chemical exergy of CO2 being ~20 kJ/mole, it's easily shown that DAC will be more than $100/tonne, and it's currently hard to get to under $200/tonne, just for the capture part.
I'll also add that biomass-based processes don't have to involve combustion, which is an exergetically-inefficient process, and which leads to having to separate CO2 from nitrogen. Steam reforming of bio-methane produces hydrogen at a few dollars per kg H2, along with a high concentration CO2 stream. DOE's "Roads to Removal" document includes considerable discussion of BiCRS pathways for hydrogen.
The other thing that shouldn't be ignored is that the natural sinks continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at rates that are directly proportional to the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2.
Recent findings on the natural sinks include that the ocean's biological carbon pump, which directly transports carbon from near-surface water into the dense interior of the ocean, is substantially stronger than had recently been assumed, and that the ocean has consistently pulled more CO2 from the atmosphere than the land. See Friedlingstein et.al. 2025.
Drawdown rates from the natural sinks have increased from about +10 GT/year in the 1970s to over +20 GT/year currently based on higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and, contrary to a popular talking point, would continue to operate at high levels -- far, far higher than we could remove CO2 using DAC technology -- even if we stopped anthropogenic CO2 overnight, declining only as atmospheric levels fall. CO2 doesn't simply stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Delegates that drew up the 2015 Paris Agreement rejected a goal of hitting net-zero by 2050 but did specifically include calls for a) peaking anthropogenic emissions as soon as possible and b) achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions and removals by sinks in the second half of the century. Bottom line here is that we are getting substantial help on these two explicit objectives through the combination of reduced emissions by developing and deploying advanced, low- and zero-carbon technologies and continued drawdown by the natural sinks. We could readily achieve both a) and b) through additional technology advances providing modest anthropogenic emission reductions of just a few percent per year.
We really should be talking now about hitting a target, like the 350 ppm CO2 target that was proposed by Hansen several years ago. Again, the natural sinks can help us do this, but we really have to make sure that we protect them.
I can send you more on this if you'd like.
As you know, the transition to a lower carbon economy is well underway. If it's successful, the upcoming conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels will accelerate it. The tragedy is that the fossil fuel industry, with the support of the current administration, is doubling down, increasing the total value of assets that will become stranded, when they should be phasing new investments out.
I'm skeptical that either DAC or BECCS will be capable of scaling to the point of being meaningful. Increased ocean alkalinity and enhanced chemical weathering may be more effective because they do have the ability to scale without using land area needed for forests and agriculture, although more research is needed on both before deployment can be considered.
This is really useful! I wonder just about word choice in this one phrase: “once the market fully accepts that these assets cannot be produced due to climate policies, their value could drop to zero rapidly.” I wonder whether it’s climate *policies* that will prevent fossil fuel reserves from being burned or whether it’s climate change itself? I mean, strictly speaking it would be policies, but isn’t the point that leaving fossil fuels in the ground is in some sense necessary due to the reality of climate change, making the systemic economic risk climate change itself as much as any climate policy. I know this seems like splitting hairs, but it feels like an important nuance to me. Is there a way to acknowledge both elements of risk so that the policies don’t seem like the singular event that will destroy the economy?
The largest pile of stranded assets will be windmills and solar panels, and their band-aid, batteries, decaying at the bottom of landfills when nuclear gets built out as baseload and clean burning natural gas fills the need for dispatchable resources. There is no place on the modern grid for chaotic, dilute sources of energy.