The Trouble with Negative Emissions. Anderson, K. & Peters, G. Science, 354(6309):182–183, October, 2016.
doi  abstract   bibtex   
In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of '' negative emissions,'' the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies. If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway. [Excerpt] [...] The promise of future and cost-optimal negative-emission technologies is more politically appealing than the prospect of developing policies to deliver rapid and deep mitigation now. If negative-emission technologies do indeed follow the idealized, rapid, and successful deployment assumed in the models, then any reduction in near-term mitigation caused by the appeal of negative emissions will likely lead to only a small and temporary overshoot of the Paris temperature goals. In stark contrast, if the many reservations increasingly voiced about negative-emission technologies [...] turn out to be valid, the weakening of near-term mitigation and the failure of future negative-emission technologies will be a prelude to rapid temperature rises reminiscent of the 4°C '' business as usual'' pathway feared before the Paris Agreement. [] Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the emphasis on equity and risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, negative-emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda. [...] They could very reasonably be the subject of research, development, and potentially deployment, but the mitigation agenda should proceed on the premise that they will not work at scale. The implications of failing to do otherwise are a moral hazard par excellence.
@article{andersonTroubleNegativeEmissions2016,
  title = {The Trouble with Negative Emissions},
  author = {Anderson, Kevin and Peters, Glen},
  year = {2016},
  month = oct,
  volume = {354},
  pages = {182--183},
  issn = {1095-9203},
  doi = {10.1126/science.aah4567},
  abstract = {In December 2015, member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, which aims to hold the increase in the global average temperature to below 2\textdegree C and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5\textdegree C. The Paris Agreement requires that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission sources and sinks are balanced by the second half of this century. Because some nonzero sources are unavoidable, this leads to the abstract concept of '' negative emissions,'' the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere through technical means. The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) informing policy-makers assume the large-scale use of negative-emission technologies. If we rely on these and they are not deployed or are unsuccessful at removing CO2 from the atmosphere at the levels assumed, society will be locked into a high-temperature pathway.

[Excerpt] [...] The promise of future and cost-optimal negative-emission technologies is more politically appealing than the prospect of developing policies to deliver rapid and deep mitigation now. If negative-emission technologies do indeed follow the idealized, rapid, and successful deployment assumed in the models, then any reduction in near-term mitigation caused by the appeal of negative emissions will likely lead to only a small and temporary overshoot of the Paris temperature goals. In stark contrast, if the many reservations increasingly voiced about negative-emission technologies [...] turn out to be valid, the weakening of near-term mitigation and the failure of future negative-emission technologies will be a prelude to rapid temperature rises reminiscent of the 4\textdegree C '' business as usual'' pathway feared before the Paris Agreement.

[] Negative-emission technologies are not an insurance policy, but rather an unjust and high-stakes gamble. There is a real risk they will be unable to deliver on the scale of their promise. If the emphasis on equity and risk aversion embodied in the Paris Agreement are to have traction, negative-emission technologies should not form the basis of the mitigation agenda. [...] They could very reasonably be the subject of research, development, and potentially deployment, but the mitigation agenda should proceed on the premise that they will not work at scale. The implications of failing to do otherwise are a moral hazard par excellence.},
  journal = {Science},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14161174,~to-add-doi-URL,biodiversity,bioenergy,carbon-capture-and-storage,carbon-dioxide-removal,carbon-emissions,climate-change,environment-society-economy,ghg,global-warming,integrated-modelling,negative-emissions,policy-strategies-for-scientific-uncertainty,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface,sustainability,technology,terminology,trade-offs,uncertainty,unknown},
  lccn = {INRMM-MiD:c-14161174},
  number = {6309}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021