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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This reference includes references of several other studies.
- 2.
BECCS is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology which produces negative carbon dioxide emissions by combining bioenergy (energy from biomass) use with geologic carbon capture and storage.
- 3.
The removal process of CO2 is as follows: The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean is primarily a response to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Excess atmospheric CO2 absorbed by the surface ocean or transported to the ocean through aquatic systems (e.g., rivers, groundwaters) gets buried in coastal sediments or transported to deep waters where it is stored for decades to centuries. The deep ocean carbon can dissolve ocean carbonate sediments to store excess CO2 on time scales of centuries to millennia. (Stocker 2013)
- 4.
It should be noted that the US is not a Party to the CBD.
- 5.
The explanation is as follows for the risk that climate impacts occurring during the period of concentration overshoot may prove irreversible: It is known that, for a given amount of total cumulative emissions, peak warming is higher for a pathway that overshoots before negative emissions begin to reduce concentrations. The peak warming is driven by time-integrated radiative forcing, and is a function of maximum cumulative emissions (before negative emissions start), rather than total cumulative emissions (including negative emissions). The higher peak warming causes greater climate impacts, and “increases the likelihood of crossing thresholds for ‘dangerous’ warming”. Of particular concern is the potential to pass thresholds relating to sea ice, glaciers, ice sheets and permafrost, which can themselves create a positive feedback that causes additional warming (for example, through albedo effects or methane emissions). Literature: (Stocker 2013).
- 6.
Mosaic-type landscape restoration accommodates multiple land uses, such as agriculture, protected reserves, managed plantations and agroforestry systems (SEI 2016).
- 7.
Science 19 May 2017: Vol. 356, Issue 6339, pp. 706–707.
- 8.
For comparison: the current global CO2 emissions are in the range of 50 Gt per year.
- 9.
This side event (http://enb.iisd.org/climate/sb46/enbots/17may.htm) concentrated on the contribution of forest landscape restoration (FLR) to the achievement of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Panelists shared views on the design and successful implementation of FLR policies and practices, and discussed how FLR contributes to reducing emissions and enhancing carbon stocks in forest landscapes. https://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge
- 10.
Assessable at: http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P290617-5.pdf.
- 11.
- 12.
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is an independent professional association for civil engineers and a charitable body which exists to deliver benefits to the public. Based in London, ICE has nearly 89,000 members, of whom three quarters are located in the United Kingdom, while the rest are located in more than 150 countries around the world. ICE supports the civil engineering profession by offering professional qualification, promoting education, maintaining professional ethics, and liaising with industry, academia and government.
- 13.
The exact wording is as follows: While it is appropriate to utilise RCP 8·5 as a realistic ‘nomitigation’ scenario, a significant global societal change in the utilisation and generation of power may bring real emissions more in line with the best-case scenario. In fact, the economics of renewable energy such as wind and solar power are decreasing dramatically and now are close to, or less expensive than, that of more traditional fossil fuels. Despite these positive factors, until the implementation of robust international agreements to reduce emissions is successfully completed, RCP 8·5 should be considered the standard.
References
Bloomberg. (2017). New energy outlook 2017. Available at https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/. Assessed 3 June 2017.
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.
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.
C2G2. (2017). Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2). Available at: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/programs/ccgg. Assessed 14 June 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
News from the National Academies. (2015). Available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=02102015. Assessed at 20 June 2017.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Radunsky, K. (2018). The Politics and Governance of Negative Emissions Technologies. In: Alves, F., Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U. (eds) Theory and Practice of Climate Adaptation. Climate Change Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72874-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72874-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72873-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72874-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)