Negative Emissions: Priorities for Research and Policy Design

Fajardy, Mathilde; Patrizio, Piera; Daggash, Habiba Ahut; Dowell, Niall Mac

doi:10.3389/fclim.2019.00006

Cited by 57 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A narrow understanding of feasibility generated by, for example, considering the potential of NETs in isolation from one another rather than as a portfolio, or not considering sociocultural or institutional dimensions, risks creating unrealistic expectations regarding the potential of NETs deployment (Fajardy et al, 2019;Low and Schäfer, 2020). This is problematic, because it has been shown that for example social acceptance can be an important barrier to the deployment of new technologies (Lock et al, 2014;Dowd et al, 2015).…”

Section: Feasibility Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emission pathways from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) most prominently feature Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (IPCC, 2018). While some approaches, such as afforestation/reforestation, have a long history in climate mitigation, the envisioned deployment scale in these pathways exceeds anything that has been deployed before (Fajardy et al, 2019;Carton et al, 2020). As NETs have not yet been scaled up, assessing the feasibility of deploying such technologies at a larger scale inevitably involves uncertainties about their implementation, effectiveness, and side effects (IPCC, 2018).…”

Section: Feasibility Operationalized In Nets Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because many NETs are still at an early stage of development, uncertainties remain regarding the feasibility and implications of their large-scale deployment (Fuss et al, 2014(Fuss et al, , 2018Low and Schäfer, 2020). Thus far, the debate on NETs has predominantly been held at a global level, and it has previously been suggested that we need to better understand feasibility of NETs deployment at the national level (de Coninck et al, 2018a;Fajardy et al, 2019). In this paper, we have seen that many national strategies include NETs in their long-term mitigation portfolio to meet their national goals and contribute to the fulfillment of the Paris Agreement.…”

Section: Moving Forward: Holistic Feasibility Assessments At the Natimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In theory, a holistic feasibility assessment could cover an almost endless number of enabling and/or hindering conditions. Holistic feasibility assessments therefore need to reflect their specific purpose, and be tailored to the national context (Oschlies and Klepper, 2017;Fajardy et al, 2019). NETs vary in nature, and not all will be suitable for all countries, as the LT-LEDS also indicate.…”

Section: Moving Forward: Holistic Feasibility Assessments At the Natimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies at the National Level: A Need for Holistic Feasibility Assessments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the global response to climate change, and to maintain an average global temperature well below 2°C, with aspirations toward 1.5°C, by means of balancing sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions. Following this, the importance of carbon dioxide removal in global emission pathways has been further emphasized, and Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) that capture carbon from the atmosphere and remove it from the system have been put in the spotlight. NETs range from innovative, engineered technologies, to well-known approaches like afforestation/reforestation. These technologies essentially compensate for a shrinking carbon budget coupled with hard-to-abate future emissions, and a historical lack of action. However, none has been deployed at scales close to what is envisioned in emission pathways in line with the Paris Agreement goals. To understand the potential contribution of NETs to meet global emission goals, we need to better understand opportunities and constraints for deploying NETs on a national level. We examine 17 Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS), and discuss them in the context of available NETs feasibility assessments. Our mapping shows that most countries include NETs in their long-term strategies, and that enhancement of natural sinks is the most dominating type of NET in these strategies. In line with many feasibility assessments, LT-LEDS focus on technical and biophysical considerations, and neglect socio-cultural dimensions. We suggest that feasibility assessments at the national level need to be more holistic; context-specific and comprehensive in terms of aspects assessed.

show abstract

Section: Feasibility Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Feasibility Operationalized In Nets Assessmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moving Forward: Holistic Feasibility Assessments At the Natimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moving Forward: Holistic Feasibility Assessments At the Natimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies at the National Level: A Need for Holistic Feasibility Assessments

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Financial viability of such projects will depend on a utilitarian carbon market that caters for negative emissions as well as an appropriate carbon price that incentivizes deployment (Hansson et al 2019). Therefore, policy should look at ways to strengthen carbon pricing mechanisms and introduce negative emissions as a new class of tradeable credits (Fajardy et al 2019).…”

Section: Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storagementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is defined as the shift in climate patterns mainly caused by greenhouse gas emissions from natural systems and human activities. So far, anthropogenic activities have caused about 1.0 °C of global warming above the pre-industrial level and this is likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 if the current emission rates persist. In 2018, the world encountered 315 cases of natural disasters which are mainly related to the climate. Approximately 68.5 million people were affected, and economic losses amounted to $131.7 billion, of which storms, floods, wildfires and droughts accounted for approximately 93%. Economic losses attributed to wildfires in 2018 alone are almost equal to the collective losses from wildfires incurred over the past decade, which is quite alarming. Furthermore, food, water, health, ecosystem, human habitat and infrastructure have been identified as the most vulnerable sectors under climate attack. In 2015, the Paris agreement was introduced with the main objective of limiting global temperature increase to 2 °C by 2100 and pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 °C. This article reviews the main strategies for climate change abatement, namely conventional mitigation, negative emissions and radiative forcing geoengineering. Conventional mitigation technologies focus on reducing fossil-based CO2 emissions. Negative emissions technologies are aiming to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Finally, geoengineering techniques of radiative forcing alter the earth’s radiative energy budget to stabilize or reduce global temperatures. It is evident that conventional mitigation efforts alone are not sufficient to meet the targets stipulated by the Paris agreement; therefore, the utilization of alternative routes appears inevitable. While various technologies presented may still be at an early stage of development, biogenic-based sequestration techniques are to a certain extent mature and can be deployed immediately.

show abstract

Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires negative emission technologies (NETs), which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and permanently store it to offset unavoidable emissions. Successful large-scale deployment of NETs depends not only on technical, biophysical, ecological, and economic factors, but also on public perception and acceptance. However, previous studies on this topic have been scarce. In 2019, Switzerland adopted a net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 target, which will require the use of NETs. To examine the current Swiss public perception and acceptance of five different NETs, we conducted an online survey with Swiss citizens (N = 693). By using a between-subjects design, we investigated differences in public opinion, perception, and acceptance across three of the most used frames in the scientific literature — technological fix, moral hazard, and climate emergency. Results showed that the public perception and acceptance of NETs does not differ between the frames. The technological fix frame best reflected participants’ opinion, whereas participants perceived the moral hazard frame the least credible and the climate emergency frame the most unclear. Moreover, our findings confirm the public’s unfamiliarity with NETs. We found no strong opposition, as participants indicated a moderate acceptance and a neutral evaluation of all five NETs, with afforestation standing out as the most accepted and positively evaluated NET. We conclude that, in the future, the public debate on NETs should be intensified, and the public perception should be monitored regularly to inform the development of NETs.

show abstract

Negative Emissions: Priorities for Research and Policy Design

Cited by 57 publications

References 50 publications

Deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies at the National Level: A Need for Holistic Feasibility Assessments

Deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies at the National Level: A Need for Holistic Feasibility Assessments

Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review

Public perception and acceptance of negative emission technologies – framing effects in Switzerland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About