Equity implications of net zero visions

Abstract

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.

The ABC of Governance Principles for Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy

“…Besides international carbon markets, international climate finance is essential for ambitious and fair mitigation action, yet could also result in over-promise and under-delivery, given past mixed outcomes of international transfers (Lenzi et al, 2021).…”

“…Relevance of these provisions and institutions could increase for CDR due to large capacity-and cost-differentials as well as co-benefit potentials. Significant differences in respective responsibility (see below regarding fair-share norms) could further add to expectations of international climate finance for mobilization of CDR as international transfers can significantly improve the distributive implications of climate action for world regions with limited resources (Lenzi et al, 2021). In this context, the term "climate justice" has been widely employed by civil society stakeholders; "climate justice" considerations can have relevant repercussions on the ranking of alternative types of CDR.…”

“…Trade-offs also exist at the aggregate level of policy mixes: Lenzi et al (2021) for example have demonstrated how three stylized policy approaches toward net-zero (including a stronger or weaker reliance on CDR) have different distributional implications, and that there may not be an unequivocally better or worse policy mix across multiple equity dimensions with small changes potentially yielding dramatically different outcomes. It is thus even more important to allow public deliberation regarding the performance of different policy instruments in an environment of multiple principles, weighted heterogeneously by different stakeholders, and to approach policy (mix) design in an adaptive manner that allows iterative improvement based on broad-stakeholder-based practical learning.…”

Putting climate change at the heart of education: Is England's strategy a placebo for policy?

“…However, there are no concrete plans for how these changes might be achieved and how the strategy links to policy from other departments, such as the Department for Transport. Net zero has been described as a 'fantasy' and a 'dangerous trap' (Dyke et al, 2021) because it advances the belief that technology will provide the solutions to climate change, risks outsourcing of pollution (Lenzi et al, 2021) and reduces the sense of urgency needed to reduce emissions now.…”

The Role of Corporates in Governing Carbon Dioxide Removal: Outlining a Research Agenda

“…Works like Fyson et al (2020), Morrow et al (2020), Pozo et al (2020), Batres et al (2021), andCarton et al (2021) highlight where injustices might arise-considering for example geographical, temporal, and sectoral distributions of CDR activity-and provide principles for just CDR policymaking, such as the use of mitigation hierarchies, mixed solution portfolios, and criteria to evaluate the local and systemic impacts of projects. These insights could inform "best practice" approaches at the firm or standard-setting level, by expanding understandings of CDR's far-reaching justice implications and seeking to proactively manage them [this type of thinking is evident in Lenzi et al (2021)].…”