No abstract

Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement stand as milestone diplomatic achievements. However, immense discrepancies between political commitments and governmental action remain. Combined national climate commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement's 1.5/2°C targets. Similar political ambition gaps persist across various areas of sustainable development. Many therefore argue that actions by nonstate actors, such as businesses and investors, cities and regions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are crucial. These voices have resonated across the United Nations (UN) system, leading to growing recognition, promotion, and mobilization of such actions in ever greater numbers. This article investigates optimistic arguments about nonstate engagement, namely: (a) “the more the better”; (b) “everybody wins”; (c) “everyone does their part”; and (d) “more brings more.” However, these optimistic arguments may not be matched in practice due to governance risks. The current emphasis on quantifiable impacts may lead to the under‐appreciation of variegated social, economic, and environmental impacts. Claims that everybody stands to benefit may easily be contradicted by outcomes that are not in line with priorities and needs in developing countries. Despite the seeming depoliticization of the role of nonstate actors in implementation, actions may still lead to politically contentious outcomes. Finally, nonstate climate and sustainability actions may not be self‐reinforcing but may heavily depend on supporting mechanisms. The article concludes with governance risk‐reduction strategies that can be combined to maximize nonstate potential in sustainable and climate‐resilient transformations. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) poses a significant and complex public policy challenge in the long-term. Presently treated as a marginal aspect of climate policy, addressing CDR as a public good is quickly becoming essential for limiting warming to well below 2 or 1.5°C by achieving net-zero emissions in time – including by mobilization of public and private finance. In this policy and practice review, we develop six functions jointly needed for policy mixes mobilizing CDR in a manner compatible with the Paris Agreement's objectives. We discuss the emerging CDR financing efforts in light of these functions, and we chart a path to a meaningful long-term structuring of policies and financing instruments. CDR characteristics point to the need for up-front capital, continuous funding for scaling, and long-term operating funding streams, as well as differentiation based on permanence of storage and should influence the design of policy instruments. Transparency and early public deliberation are essential for charting a politically stable course of action on CDR, while specific policy designs are being developed in a way that ensures effectiveness, prevents rent-seeking at public expense, and allows for iterative course corrections. We propose a stepwise approach whereby various CDR approaches initially need differentiated treatment based on their differing maturity and cost through R&D pilot activity subsidies. In the longer term, CDR increasingly ought to be funded through mitigation results-oriented financing and included in broader policy instruments. We conclude that CDR needs to become a regularly-provided public service like public waste management has become over the last century.

As the international community's best expression of a collective vision of a desirable future, the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present a framework against which to assess the broader impact of emerging technologies. Implications of technologies and practices for removing CO 2 from the atmosphere (CDR) are not fully understood and have not yet been mapped against the full range of SDGs. CDR is widely seen as necessary to achieve the Paris Agreement's global goal of limiting warming to 1.5-2°C, yet local geographical, socioeconomic , and political interdependencies are often overlooked. This review synthesizes the best available understandings of potential implications of CDR options aiming to complement emissions reductions. It seeks to identify effects on and interactions between specific social, environmental, and policy environments, in which various CDR options could be pursued. Climate change mitigation and co-benefits from CDR could significantly benefit SDGs, yet poorly designed CDR policies could also challenge SDGs. Specific CDR options could generate conflicts over land, water, biomass, or electric power resources, and exclude communities from policy benefits with negative cascading effects for a range of SDGs. In the literature, implications of CDR activities on sustainable development are derived from current pilot activities, inferred from similar practices already operational or model outputs regarding land, energy, or material requirements. Important gaps remain. We identify questions for further disciplinary and inter-or transdisciplinary work strengthening understanding of how CDR could either support or threaten the achievement of the SDGs. Key policy insights. CO 2 removal (CDR) appears essential for limiting warming to well below 2°C; such stabilization of global climate is a precondition for at least partially achieving the SDGs.. CDR options can generate positive and negative local/regional impacts on various SDGs via physical, social, economic, and political channels. None of these options are universally 'good' or 'bad'.. The scale of implementation of CDR and related impacts are highly dependent on policy design and national planning processes.. More research is needed to clarify how policy design can allow CDR options to generate synergies between, and prevent harm across, multiple SDGs.

Climate change is a paradigmatic example of systemic risk. Recently, proposals for large-scale interventions-carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM)have started to redefine climate governance strategies. We describe how evolving modeling practices are trending toward optimized and "best-case" projections-portraying deployment schemes that create both technically slanted and politically sanitized profiles of risk, as well as ideal objectives for CDR and SRM as mitigation-enhancing, time-buying mechanisms for carbon transitions or vulnerable populations. As promises, stylized and hopeful projections may selectively reinforce industry and political activities built around the inertia of the carbon economy. Some evidence suggests this is the emerging case for certain kinds of CDR, where the prospect of future carbon capture substitutes for present mitigation. Either of these implications are systemic: explorations of climatic futures may entrench certain carbon infrastructures. We point out efforts and recommendations to forestall this trend in the implementation of the Paris Agreement, by creating more stakeholder input and strengthening political realism in modeling and other assessments, as well as through policy guardrails.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is often characterized as separate from climate change mitigation. Discussion of CDR governance – despite enjoying growing interest – tends to overlook how key provisions on mitigation apply. Similarly, many climate policy processes have ignored CDR. CDR may have been discursively held separate from ‘mitigation’ due to a partial conceptual overlap with ‘geoengineering’. We unpack how the ‘mitigation of climate change’ – as defined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement – includes CDR as defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We point to important implications and opportunities for strengthening governance by enhanced clarity regarding parties’ obligations, principled equitable distribution of removal efforts, prioritization of rapid emissions reductions and careful paths to long‐term removals, and a need for considering sustainability and human rights issues in the pursuit of CDR.

With national governments almost universally pledging to achieve net zero emissions, a key uncertainty is how net zero policies will affect global equity. It is unclear which policy measures are available for achieving net zero equitably, what the social and environmental implications of these measures will be under global pathways, or how they might be implemented in ways that advance rather than undermine equity. By means of three stylized future pathways, we show that there are potentially serious international and domestic equity effects from global net zero policies, as well as opportunities to achieve an equitable net zero future for all through appropriate policy design.

Climate change mitigation actions, including those aimed at developing and scaling carbon dioxide removal (CDR) activities spanning the industrial, energy, and agroforestry sector, emerge in a context of internationally shared norms that include governance objectives, legal provisions and informal expectations, and societal expectations. Established governance principles provide normative orientation for policy including when targeting the development and scaling of CDR. Knowledge of these principles can guide effective discussion and evaluation of policy options. To facilitate discussion of mitigation options among experts and CDR practitioners, this study excerpts governance principles from legislative texts, the climate governance literature, and the CDR literature with relevance to CDR policy considerations. To illustrate the relevance of the governance principles found for evaluating policy options, we apply them to three technology groups of CDR: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), and forestry. This exercise indicates the importance of more intensive attention to the normative dimension of mitigation policies in ongoing deliberative and planning processes. Such efforts can help disentangle normative and factual dimensions and sources of (dis)agreement on the role of CDR in specific climate policy contexts.