Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis

Lenzi, Dominic; Lamb, William F.; Hilaire, Jérôme; Kowarsch, Martin; Minx, Jan C.

doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06695-5

Cited by 69 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the basis of the current study, we feel that discussing the costs of CCS should be done in the context of the cost of broader energy system transformation (or of not mitigating climate change) so that the public can deliberate the relative risks and benefits of CCS in the context of broader sustainability pathways (Demski et al, 2015). Such public debate and deliberation is critical in light of ethical concerns about negative emissions technologies, including CCS, and their role in desirable societal futures (Lenzi et al, 2018). Our experimental texts were designed to explore responses to CCS in relation to different frames; one of the frames posed CCS as an alternative to lifestyle change when in reality both will be required in order to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees above preindustrial levels (Lenzi et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Such public debate and deliberation is critical in light of ethical concerns about negative emissions technologies, including CCS, and their role in desirable societal futures (Lenzi et al, 2018). Our experimental texts were designed to explore responses to CCS in relation to different frames; one of the frames posed CCS as an alternative to lifestyle change when in reality both will be required in order to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees above preindustrial levels (Lenzi et al, 2018). This arguably highlights a limitation of brief framing studies or simple, top-down information-based interventions in comparison to more participatory and deliberative approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) involves trapping carbon dioxide (CO 2) from power generation and heavy industrial processes and directing it into long-term geological storage (e.g., in depleted oil fields or saline aquifers). In doing so, CCS could facilitate global carbon abatement efforts. Yet, it remains controversial with high-profile public opposition to particular CCS developments. For instrumental, normative and substantive reasons, it is increasingly recognised that public acceptance of CCS as a vital precondition for its commercial-scale rollout. While much is known about factors influencing public support for CCS, relatively few cross-national studies have so far been undertaken. Here, we present findings from a large-scale international experimental study of public perceptions of CCS, to examine how individual, geographical and informational factors influence support for CCS. In particular, we compare the lens through which CCS is seenas a 'techno-fix' climate change solution, as reusing a waste product (through Carbon Dioxide Utilisation [CDU]), or as part of a systemic approach to climate change mitigation. Pairing CCS with CDU led to higher support for CCS, although information frames interacted with national and individual-level factors. Depending on which CCS lens is chosen, different groups will be more or less likely to support CCS implementation. As with other issues, targeting CCS information to audience values is likely to be more effective than untargeted communication. Our findings also show mentioning (modest) costs of deploying CCS can lead to lower support. Discussing CCS costs should be done in the context of costs of broader energy system transformation and of not mitigating climate change so that the public can deliberate over the relative risks and benefits of CCS and alternatives in the context of broader sustainability pathways.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The IAMs that inform the IPCC pathways and, hence, the global policy dialogue, are central to the debate about the potential role of CDR measures in relation to carbon budgets and have attracted significant attention in the literature, which highlights the uncertainties and ethical implications associated with representing global-scale CDR through BECCS, the level of influence that this might have on the policy agenda and the assumptions made within the models [50,[60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. The key is that BECCS and CDR are not alternatives to conventional emission mitigation; the magnitude of CDR required to meet carbon budgets associated with the Paris Agreement is highly challenging even with ambitious emission reductions in the near term [20,63,67,68].…”

Section: Extending Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

Gough¹,

Mander²

2019

Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review This paper assesses social science research relating to BECCS and considers the applicability of research on CCS to BECCS. Recent Findings In recent years, social science research on CCS and BECCS has gone beyond an evaluation of public acceptance to provide a more nuanced analysis of the wider social political, ethical, and governance contexts in which large-scale deployment might be achieved. This raises issues at global, local, and regional scales, requiring a wide array of methods and approaches. Summary Awareness of the scale and urgency needed to act on climate change is growing and the role of BECCS in delivering carbon dioxide removal forms a central argument for the use of this family of technologies. Here, framing becomes a critical factor in how society responds to BECCS technologies and we argue that making the case for BECCS as a means of extending mitigation to make a 'net zero' goal achievable could be the key to its acceptable and sustainable deployment. Keywords CCS. BECCS. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Negative emissions. Social responses. Acceptability This article is part of the Topical Collection on Deep Decarbonization: BECCS

show abstract

“…Recently, the role of emission pathways of negative emission options, such as afforestation and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), has also been examined by IAMs (Edmonds et al 2013, Fuss et al 2013, Kriegler et al 2013, Tavoni and Socolow 2013) with a particular focus on stringent policy objectives, such as 2°C and 1.5°C (Rogelj et al 2018). However, the role of discounting and its interplay with negative emissions technologies in shaping emission pathways has been overlooked, while the importance of ethical considerations for these technologies has been acknowledged (Fuss et al 2016, Lenzi et al 2018. The only two contributions addressing this issue partly are Ermoliev et al (2008), who considers the role of the discount rate for management of catastrophic risks, and (Chen and Tavoni 2013) as a sensitivity analysis for the use of direct air capture (DAC).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions

Emmerling

Drouet

Wijst

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of the discount rate in cost-benefit analysis of long term problems, such as climate change, has been widely acknowledged. However, the choice of the discount rate is hardly discussed when translating policy targets-such as 1.5°C and 2°C-into emission reduction strategies with the possibility of overshoot. Integrated assessment models (IAMs) have quantified the sensitivity of low carbon pathways to a series of factors, including economic and population growth, national and international climate policies, and the availability of low carbon technologies, including negative emissions. In this paper we show how and to what extent emission pathways are also influenced by the discount rate. Using both an analytical and a numerical IAM, we demonstrate how discounting affects key mitigation indicators, such as the time when net global emissions reach zero, the amount of carbon budget overshoot, and the carbon price profile. To ensure inter-generational equity and be coherent with cost-benefit analysis normative choices, we suggest that IAMs should use lower discount rates than the ones currently adopted. For a 1000 GtCO 2 carbon budget, reducing the discount rate from 5% to 2% would more than double today's carbon price (from 21 to 55 $/tCO 2 ) and more than halve the carbon budget overshoot (from 46% to 16%), corresponding to a reduction of about 300 GtCO 2 of net negative emissions over the century.

show abstract

Don’t deploy negative emissions technologies without ethical analysis

Cited by 69 publications

References 10 publications

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

Framing effects on public support for carbon capture and storage

Beyond Social Acceptability: Applying Lessons from CCS Social Science to Support Deployment of BECCS

The role of the discount rate for emission pathways and negative emissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About