“…In the carbon sinks debate, a key concern has long been that a focus on carbon removal will provide the justification for business‐as‐usual and thereby risks undermining ambitious climate action (FERN, 2001; Lövbrand, 2009). In the negative emissions discussion as well, there is widespread concern that NETs serve to mask the lack of effective mitigation action (Geden, 2015; Pielke, 2018) or contribute to legitimate the status quo through fossil fuel lock‐in, moral hazard or “mitigation deterrence,” that is, the undue substitution or delay of necessary emission reductions (Carton, 2019; Lenzi, 2018; Markusson, McLaren, & Tyfield, 2018; McLaren, Tyfield, Willis, Szerszynski, & Markusson, 2019; Merk, Pönitzsch, & Rehdanz, 2019; Preston, 2013). That carbon sinks were inserted in international policy discussions in an explicit effort to provide flexibility and low‐cost mitigation alternatives for carbon‐intensive economies is perhaps the clearest indication that these are not idle concerns.…”