Caution in Defining the Public for Legitimate Geoengineering Governance

Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo

doi:10.1080/21550085.2018.1509477

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is also the danger of carbon majors pursuing emitting activities in some countries while benefitting from incentives and state subsidies to undertake CDR in other countries. To make feasibility assessments more credible in the future, it is essential to create opportunities for democratic participation in determinations of feasible and fair policy proposals to decarbonize (Honegger et al, 2017; Lenzi & Kowarsch, 2021; Wallimann-Helmer, 2018, 2021).…”

Section: Justice and Incentivizing Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice in benefitting from carbon removal

Lenzi,

Schübel,

Wallimann-Helmer

2023

Glob. Sustain.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-Technical Summary Climate stabilization requires scaling-up technologies to capture and store carbon. Carbon removal could be very profitable, and some of the agents best placed to benefit are ‘carbon majors’, i.e. fossil fuel companies. We argue that in ordinary circumstances only agents without significant historical climate responsibilities would be entitled to the full benefits from carbon removal. Under non-ideal conditions, carbon majors might be entitled to benefit, provided that no other agent could remove similar quantities of carbon at similar costs. This burden of proof is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. Technical Summary Climate stabilization requires scaling up technologies to capture and store carbon. Some of the agents best placed to profit from carbon removal are ‘carbon majors’, especially fossil fuel companies. Yet incentivizing carbon majors to undertake carbon removal poses an ethical dilemma: carbon majors have made significant historical contributions to climate change and have significantly benefitted from such contributions without being made to compensate for resulting climate harm. This is why it seems unfair to reward them with additional economic benefits. However, carbon majors possess the technological skills and infrastructure to upscale carbon removal efficiently. We argue that in ordinary circumstances, only agents without significant climate responsibilities would be morally entitled to fully benefit from carbon removal. Yet under non-ideal conditions, it might be permissible to reward carbon majors if no other agent were capable of removing as much carbon at similar costs and on similar timeframes. We believe this argument faces an imposing burden of proof that is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. In more favorable circumstances, including those of most OECD countries, rewarding carbon majors without having them pay for their historical climate responsibilities remains impermissible. Social Media Summary Rewarding carbon majors to undertake carbon dioxide removal is unjust due to their historical climate responsibilities. Where possible, governments should empower other agents to remove CO2.

show abstract

Section: Justice and Incentivizing Carbon Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%