A preliminary framework for understanding the governance of novel environmental technologies: Ambiguity, indeterminateness and drift

Rabitz, Florian; Feist, Marian; Honegger, Matthias; Horton, Joshua; Jinnah, Sikina; Reynolds, Jesse L.

doi:10.1016/j.esg.2022.100134

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carton (2019) too identifies close compatibility between large‐scale carbon removal and the interests of carbon‐intensive industries, arguing that removals are attractive for these industries because they help moderate the devaluation of fossil fuel assets (see also Hall & Davis, 2021). Taken together, this literature suggests that a combination of economic and political commitments to existing infrastructures and energy strategies is creating path dependencies that make non‐CDR pathways seem unfeasible (Oomen, 2021; Rabitz et al, 2022; Sarnoff, 2020).…”

Section: Why We Disagree About the Role Of Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Carton

Hougaard

Markusson

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Carbon dioxide removal is rapidly becoming a key focus in climate research and politics. This is raising concerns of "moral hazard" or "mitigation deterrence," that is, the risk that promises of and/or efforts to pursue carbon removal end up reducing or delaying near-term mitigation efforts. Some, however, contest this risk, arguing that it is overstated or lacking evidence. In this review, we explore the reasons behind the disagreement in the literature. We unpack the different ways in which moral hazard/mitigation deterrence (MH/MD) is conceptualized and examine how these conceptualizations inform assessments of MH/MD risks. We find that MH/MD is a commonly recognized feature of modeled mitigation pathways but that conclusions as to the realworld existence of MH/MD diverge on individualistic versus structural approaches to examining it. Individualistic approaches favor narrow conceptualizations of MH/MD, which tend to exclude the wider political-economic contexts in which carbon removal emerges. This exclusion limits the value and relevance of such approaches. We argue for a broader understanding of what counts as evidence of delaying practices and propose a research agenda that complements theoretical accounts of MH/MD with empirical studies of the political-economic structures that may drive mitigation deterrence dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Why We Disagree About the Role Of Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Carton

Hougaard

Markusson

et al. 2023

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Toward an evidence‐informed, responsible, and inclusive debate on solar geoengineering: A response to the proposed non‐use agreement

Parson,

Buck,

Jinnah

et al. 2024

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A prominent recent perspective article in this journal and accompanying open letter propose a broad international “non‐use agreement” (NUA) on activities related to solar geoengineering (SG). The NUA calls on governments to renounce large‐scale use of SG, and also to refuse to fund SG research, ban outdoor experiments, decline to grant IP rights, and reject discussions of SG in international organizations. We argue that such pre‐emptive rejection of public research and consultation would deprive future policy‐makers of knowledge and capability that would support informed decisions to safely and equitably limit climate risk, sustain human welfare, and protect threatened ecosystems. In contrast to the broad prohibitions of the NUA, we propose an alternative near‐term pathway with five elements: assess SG risks and benefits in the context of related climate risks and responses; distinguish the risks and governance needs of SG research and deployment; pursue research that treats uncertainties and divergent results even‐handedly; harness normalization of SG as a path to effective assessment and governance; and build a more globally inclusive conversation on SG and its governance. These principles would support a more informed, responsible, and inclusive approach to limiting climate risks, including judgments on the potential role or rejection of SG, than the prohibitory approach of the NUA.This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Policy and Governance > National Climate Change Policy

show abstract

Smart Oceans: Artificial intelligence and marine protected area governance

Bakker

2022

Earth System Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A preliminary framework for understanding the governance of novel environmental technologies: Ambiguity, indeterminateness and drift

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Toward an evidence‐informed, responsible, and inclusive debate on solar geoengineering: A response to the proposed non‐use agreement

Smart Oceans: Artificial intelligence and marine protected area governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About