Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization

Kreuter, Judith

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60340-3

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discourse and similar analyses have, so far, often assessed the discussion on geoengineering approaches as a whole (i.e. both NETs and solar radiation management (SRM) approaches) (see, for example, Anshelm & Hansson, 2014;Linnér & Wibeck, 2015;Luokkanen et al, 2014;Porter & Hulme, 2013;Boettcher, 2019;Kreuter, 2021), discussed NETs as a group (see, e.g., Markusson et al, 2018;Colvin et al, 2019) or specific NETs groups (Cox et al, 2020;Cox et al, 2021), or focused on SRM approaches (see, for example, Macnaghten & Szerszynski, 2013). Discussing both SRM and NETs as 'geoengineering' is criticized by Lomax et al, who argue that, instead, NETs "can in fact form a valuable complement to emissions control within on-going mitigation efforts" (Lomax et al, 2015, p. 125).…”

Section: Geopolitical Analogies To Nets: Redd+ and Renewable Energy (Re)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…both NETs and SRM approaches) (see, e.g. Anshelm & Hansson, 2014;Boettcher, 2019;Kreuter, 2021;Linnér & Wibeck, 2015;Luokkanen et al, 2014;Porter & Hulme, 2013), discussed NETs as a group (see, e.g. Colvin et al, 2019;Markusson et al, 2018) or specific NET groups (Cox et al, 2020(Cox et al, , 2021, or focused on SRM approaches (see, e.g.…”

Section: The Geopolitics Of Netsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The geopolitics of negative emissions technologies: learning lessons from REDD+ and renewable energy for afforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture

Kreuter

Lederer

2021

Glob. Sustain.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) have received increasing interest in recent years as a potential part of a portfolio of measures to address anthropogenic climate change, in particular following the 2015 UNFCCC Paris Agreement and the 2018 IPCC Special Report 'Global Warming of 1.5°C'. This increasing significance for global climate policy is faced with a multitude of open questions regarding, among others, the geopolitical implications of largescale use of NETs. This paper outlines what we can learn for the possible geopolitical futures of NETs from existing international 'green' approaches.

show abstract

Section: Geopolitical Analogies To Nets: Redd+ and Renewable Energy (Re)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Geopolitics Of Netsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The geopolitics of negative emissions technologies: learning lessons from REDD+ and renewable energy for afforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture

Kreuter

Lederer

2021

Glob. Sustain.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

Osaka

Bellamy

Castree

2021

WIREs Climate Change

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, there has been a growth in scholarship on “nature‐based solutions” and “natural climate solutions” to climate change. A variety of actors have argued that these natural solutions—variously involving the protection, conservation, restoration, management, enhancement, or imitation of natural ecosystems—can play a crucial role in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. What is more, by virtue of their label, natural solutions promise to be particularly attractive to the public and policymakers and have received significant media and scholarly attention. But what is natural is also social: people, acting in various social groups, can selectively emphasize or deemphasize certain characteristics of climate solutions to make them seem more or less natural. The framing of particular solutions as “natural” or “unnatural” has far‐reaching implications for climate policy, but has thus far been overlooked. Here, we undertake a critical review of the ways in which natural solutions to climate change have been framed and examine the normative and practical implications of this framing. We review what counts (and what does not count) as a natural solution, and find that those labeled natural are routinely framed under technical and social appraisal criteria as being more beneficial, cost effective, mature, and democratic than ostensibly artificial counterparts. And yet we show that, under greater scrutiny, the natural framing obscures the reality that natural solutions can be just as risky, expensive, immature, and technocratic. We conclude by reflecting on the dangers of narrowing the range of solutions considered natural and indeed, of selecting solutions through recourse to “nature” at all. Rather, climate solutions must be evaluated in terms of their specific qualities, against a far broader range of framings. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

show abstract

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Carton

Hougaard

Markusson

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of "moral hazard" or "mitigation deterrence," that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near-term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the realworld existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political-economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political-economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.

show abstract

Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The geopolitics of negative emissions technologies: learning lessons from REDD+ and renewable energy for afforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture

The geopolitics of negative emissions technologies: learning lessons from REDD+ and renewable energy for afforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture

Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About