Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications

Buck, Holly Jean

doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6

Cited by 126 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…loss of biodiversity, land-use conflicts, storage safety and water shortage; Buck 2016). In line with Buck (2016), we see a need for further exploration of sense-making about BECCS since many significant societal problems related to scaling up that method are not investigated and poorly understood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores sense-making about climate engineering among lay focus group participants in Japan, New Zealand, the USA and Sweden. In total, 23 qualitative focus group interviews of 136 participants were conducted. The analyses considered sense-making strategies and heuristics among the focus group participants and identified commonalities and variations in the data, exploring participants' initial and spontaneous reactions to climate engineering and to several recurrent arguments that feature in scientific and public debate (e.g. climate emergency). We found that, despite this study's wide geographical scope, heterogeneous focus group compositions, and the use of different moderators, common themes emerged. Participants made sense of climate engineering in similar ways, for example, through context-dependent analogies and metaphorical Climatic Change (2017)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the dominant presumption that the large-scale roll out of 'negative emission technologies' is technically (2), economically (2), and socially (7) viable. In many of the scenarios the level of negative emissions is comparable in size to the remaining carbon budget (Figure 1), and are sufficient to bring global emissions to at least net-zero in the second half of the century.…”

Section: From Carbon Budgets To Emission Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The trouble with negative emissions

Anderson

Peters

2016

Science

1,019

474

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is important for two reasons: firstly, because most of the literature on GGR focuses on economic and technical feasibility, without considering social barriers (Buck, 2016); and secondly, because this issue raises important practical questions regarding the governance and financing of climate engineering techniques. Section Social, Ethical, and Political Concerns examines three important ethical themes which whilst typically raised about geoengineering can also apply to many mitigation technologies, and demonstrates that several technologies exist in a sort of ethical "gray area" between the two.…”

Section: Terrestrial Enhanced Weathering (Ew)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blurred Lines: The Ethics and Policy of Greenhouse Gas Removal at Scale

Cox

Pidgeon

Spence

et al. 2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) for climate geoengineering is becoming increasingly salient following the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report and the Paris Agreement. GGR is thought of as a separate category to mitigation techniques such as low-carbon supply or demand reduction, yet multiple social, ethical and acceptability concerns cut across categories. We propose moving beyond classifying climate strategies as a set of discrete categories (which may implicitly homogenize diverse technologies), toward a prioritization of questions of scale of both technology and decision-making in the examination of social and ethical risks. This is not just a theoretical issue: important questions for policy, governance and finance are raised, for instance over the future inclusion of GGR in carbon markets. We argue that the conclusions drawn about how best to categorize, govern and incentivize any strategy will depend on the framing used, because different framings could lead to very different policy recommendations being drawn. Because of this, a robust approach to developing, governing and financing GGR should pay attention first to urgent concerns regarding democracy, justice and acceptability.

show abstract

Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications

Cited by 126 publications

References 52 publications

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries

The trouble with negative emissions

Blurred Lines: The Ethics and Policy of Greenhouse Gas Removal at Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About