Geoengineering: neither economical, nor ethical—a risk–reward nexus analysis of carbon dioxide removal

Abstract

This article addresses a central debate in combatting climate change: whether we should focus on reducing CO 2 emissions or on removing the emitted CO 2 from the atmosphere. We favor the former by arguing against the economic viability of the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) branch of geoengineering. This is of course not a question of either or, but we argue that the perception of CDR as a viable option reduces the willingness to reduce CO 2 emissions. Using the recently developed approach of risk-reward nexus (RRN) in the economics of innovation, we question the economic viability of CDR. The main argument is simple: if one uses the new framework of RRN in evaluating the innovations involved in the CDR branch of geoengineering, not only does one include more areas of risk but also one has to consider a broader base for distributing the rewards. Consequently, from RRN's point of view, it would be less likely to find investing in CDR economically viable for the investor firms. Although the core argument of the paper concerns the economics of CDR, in a final section the paper tries to show that the economic argument has also ethical implications against relying on CDR.

Biochar as multi-purpose sustainable technology: experiences from projects in Tanzania

“…Since the market for voluntary offsets has proven more stable than the compliance market (Lambe et al, 2015), it would probably also provide a less risky financial context for projects. It should be stressed that the moral case for insulating LDCslacking historical climate change guilt-from a global compliance carbon market is ultimately inseparable from the practical argument, since carbon offsets may well hinder rather than facilitate energy systems transition in developed countries (Bracking 2015;Carton and Andersson 2017;Edstedt and Carton 2018;Faran and Olsson 2018;McLaren et al 2019). The numbers refer to the project number assigned to each project in the body text.…”

Paris Agreement, Precautionary Principle and Human Rights: Zero Emissions in Two Decades?

“…The statement to neutralize emissions that they do contain could, at first sight, intend to employ geoengineering, instead of phasing out oil, gas and coal. Geoengineering refers to interventions in the atmosphere or the oceans (or storing sequestrated CO 2 underground, e.g., from coal power plants), in order to reduce solar radiation or increase the storage capacity for greenhouse gases [73,74]. The discussion of these technologies is too complex to be reflected in this paper en passant.…”

“…2 para. 1 PA, the precautionary principle and human rights) is rendered unnecessary for the most part (on the controversy on negative emissions, see [3,23,25,[73][74][75][76]). This remains true, even in view of the abovementioned TEBs, which assume an emissions and temperature overshoot before withdrawing GHGs from the atmosphere [26,37,40,41,43,60].…”

Social fields and natural systems: integrating knowledge about society and nature

“…What Crutzen did not realize was that by publishing the essay he probably made a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (even) less plausible because just the perception of geoengineering as a viable option reduces the willingness to curb CO 2 emissions (Faran and Olsson 2018). From a natural systems point of view, his reasoning makes sense; if we cannot reduce global warming by curbing the emission of greenhouse gases, then we should at least try to counteract the warming by injecting aerosols.…”