Kevin Anderson, Holly Jean Buck, Lili Fuhr, Oliver Geden, Glen P. Peters, Eve Tamme
{"title":"二氧化碳去除的争议","authors":"Kevin Anderson, Holly Jean Buck, Lili Fuhr, Oliver Geden, Glen P. Peters, Eve Tamme","doi":"10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.","PeriodicalId":18921,"journal":{"name":"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Controversies of carbon dioxide removal\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Anderson, Holly Jean Buck, Lili Fuhr, Oliver Geden, Glen P. Peters, Eve Tamme\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s43017-023-00493-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00493-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Reviews Earth & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00493-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Various methods of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are being pursued in response to the climate crisis, but they are mostly not proven at scale. Climate experts are divided over whether CDR is a necessary requirement or a dangerous distraction from limiting emissions. In this Viewpoint, six experts offer their views on the CDR debate.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
