Advertisement

The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies

  • Klaus Radunsky
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

The starting point of this paper is the Paris Agreement under the UNFCCC agreed in 2015 and its global temperature goal. It highlights that the current pathway of decarbonization would result in a sharp temperature increase by 2100 (see Sect. 1) that would result in unacceptable risks of climate change (see Sect. 2). Those risks cannot be properly addressed by adaptation activities as long as there are no reliable expectations of the climate changes expected over the lifetime of current projects. The paper informs about such recently published projections that suggest that global surface temperatures will increase by approximately 5 °C (9 °F) over pre-industrial temperatures by the year 2100 and discusses options to bridge the gap to the goals specified in the Paris Agreement. In this context also two main geoengineering options carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiative management (SRM) and their associated risks are considered. At the center of the paper two proposals are made on a limited use of geoengineering that should finally help meet the goals of the Paris Agreement without increasing risks of geoengineering unduly, provided that decarbonization is significantly accelerated beyond the plans included in current National Determined Contributions. One conclusion is that geo-engineering can only provide a small contribution to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement and that the main contribution needs to come from enhanced mitigation action. The paper also highlights how recommendations of the Financial Stability Board could contribute to result in the necessary shift of investments to accelerate GHG emission reduction and informs about a recent initiative to establish the necessary governance framework to manage geoengineering.

Keywords

Paris agreement Climate change risks Geo-engineering Climate action 

References

  1. Bloomberg. (2017). New energy outlook 2017. Available at https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/. Assessed 3 June 2017.
  2. Bonn. (2017, May). Global status of carbon capture and storage and the progress made over the past two decades. Presented by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute. Available at: http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb46/enbots/13may.html. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  3. Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W., Gerten, D., Heck, V., Lenton, T. M., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017). The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth’s Future, 5, 463–474.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000469. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000469/full. Assessed at 8 June 2017.
  4. C2G2. (2017). Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2). Available at: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg. Assessed 14 June 2017.
  5. Civil Society Briefing. (2017). What is wrong with Solar Radiation Management? 24 Mar 2017. Available at: http://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_briefing_why_srm_experiments_are_bad_idea_2.pdf. Assessed at 10 June 2017.
  6. Foyster, G. (2017). Climate pipe dreams—Eureka Street (Vol. 27, No. 6). 30 Mar 2017. Available at: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=51021. Assessed at: 10 June 2017.
  7. FSB. (2016). Recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures. Available at: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/recommendations-report/ Assessed 15 December 2016.
  8. ICE, Institution of Civil Engineers. (2017). In Proceedings Briefing: Future Climate Projections Allow Engineering Planning. Available at http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/pdf/10.1680/jfoen.17.00002. Assessed 2 June 2017.
  9. IEA. (2017). IEA study perspectives for the energy transition. Available at: https://www.energiewende2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Perspectives-for-the-Energy-Transition_WEB.pdf. Assessed at 19 June 2017.
  10. IPCC. (2014a). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–32. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  11. IPCC. (2014b). Climate change 2014: Synthesis Report. In: Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  12. Joeri, R., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., et al. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature, 534, 631–639.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307. Available at https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18307.html. Assessed 30 June 2016.
  13. Kaufmann, N. (2017). Republican-proposed “carbon dividend” is a great sign of progress. 10 Feb 2017. Blog Post Available at: http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/02/republican-proposed-carbon-dividend-great-sign-progress. Assessed 3 June 2017.
  14. Lewandowsky, S., Freeman M. C., & Mann, M. E. (2017). Harnessing the uncertainty monster: Putting quantitative constraints on the intergenerational social discount rate. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 25 April 2017. Available at: https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0921818116302958&orderBeanReset=true. Assessed at 29 June 2017.
  15. Mackenzie. (2017). Report: Could renewables be the Majors’ next big thing? Available at: https://www.woodmac.com/reports/upstream-oil-and-gas-could-renewables-be-the-majors-next-big-thing-46827370. Assessed 1 June 2017.
  16. Mackenzie, K. (2017). Why IEA scenarios should be treated with extreme caution. Financial Times, 24 May 2017. Available at: https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/05/24/2189189/guest-post-why-iea-scenarios-should-be-treated-with-extreme-caution/. Assessed 29 May 2017.
  17. Matter, J.M., et al. (2016), Rapid carbon mineralization for permanent disposal of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Science, 10 Jun 2016: 352(6291), 1312–1314; Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad8132; checked at 16 Feb 2018
  18. News from the National Academies. (2015). Available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02102015. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  19. Porter, E. (2017). To curb global warming, science fiction may become fact. Economic Scene, 4 April 2017. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/business/economy/geoengineering-climate-change.html. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  20. Roberts, D. (2017). 2 remarkable facts that illustrate solar power’s declining cost. Vox 3 February 2017. Available at: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/22/14022114/solar-year-two-remarkable-facts. Assessed 29 June 2017.
  21. Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017). Science, 355 (6331) 1269–1271, 23 March 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443. Available at https://de.scribd.com/document/343117244/A-roadmap-for-rapid-decarbonization. Assessed 7 April 2017.
  22. SEI. (2016). The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action. In: SEI Working Paper, August 2016. Available at: https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-08-Negative-emissions.pdf. Assessed at 10 June 2017.
  23. Stanford News Service. (2017). Assuming easy carbon removal from the atmosphere is a high-stakes gamble, Stanford scientists say. Stanford News Service, 18 May 2017. Available at: http://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2017/05/18/carbon-removal-tgh-stakes-gamble/. Assessed at 8 June 2017.
  24. Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Alexander, L. V., Allen, S. K., Bindoff, N. L., et al. (2013). Technical summary. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Thematic Focus Element 7 Carbon Cycle Perturbation and Uncertainties, page 96. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
  25. Wendle, J. (2017). The Ominous Story of Syria’s climate refugees. Scientific American March 2017. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/. Assessed 29 June 2017.
  26. WG2. (2014). In C. B Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir (Eds.) Assessment box SPM.1 figure 1 from IPCC, 2014: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG2. Assessed 27 June 2017.
  27. William, N. (2017). Global 2C warming limit not feasible, warns top economist. Available at: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/01/04/global-2c-warming-limit-not-feasible-warns-top-economist/. Assessed 10 January 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UmweltbundesamtViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations