Moral Conflicts of several “Green” terrestrial Negative Emission Technologies regarding the Human Right to Adequate Food – A Review

Hohlwegler, Patrick

doi:10.5194/adgeo-49-37-2019

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the state in question is then unwilling or unable to provide for its citizens, a violation of the obligation to protect pursuant to Article 11 ICESCR would arise. In sum, infringements of the obligations to protect and to fulfill under Article 11 ICESCR appear to be highly likely if BECCS deployment is pursued at the levels currently envisaged by the IPCC [144].…”

Section: The Right To Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment

Günther

Ekardt

2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) approaches are an essential part of virtually any scenario in which global warming is limited to 1.5 °C in accordance with the Paris Agreement. Discussions often focus on two technologies due to their substantial carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration potential: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS). However, the large-scale deployment of both technologies—especially BECCS—may lead to significant human rights infringements. This paper aims to analyze the impact of both technologies on human rights from the methodological perspective of a legal interpretation of international law. It shows that a large-scale BECCS strategy, which inevitably requires enormous land-use changes, will most likely infringe upon the right to food, the right to water, and the right to a healthy environment. In contrast, large-scale DACCS approaches will likely have a smaller human rights impact, but the energy-intensive process could also infringe upon the right to energy. Balancing these human rights with other freedom rights, e.g., of consumers and enterprises, the paper will further demonstrate that from the perspective of human rights, rapid emission reductions and the minimization of livestock farming—and also less risky nature-based options such as peatland and forest management—should prevail before any large-scale industrial NET strategies.

show abstract

Section: The Right To Foodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment

Günther

Ekardt

2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, the academic research that uses the term NCS is limited but rapidly growing, increasing nearly eight-fold between November 2019 and September 2021 (see section 3.1). The general consensus from experts in the academic literature maintains the distinction that NCS focus on climate change mitigation activities (Hohlwegler 2019, Griscom et al 2020. As such, we adopt this definition of NCS for our study.…”

Section: Defining Natural Climate Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What influences the implementation of natural climate solutions? A systematic map and review of the evidence

Schulte

Eggers

Nielsen

et al. 2021

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emerging research points to large greenhouse gas mitigation opportunities for activities that are focused on the preservation and maintenance of ecosystems, also known as natural climate solutions (NCS). Despite large quantifications of the potential biophysical and carbon benefits of these activities, these estimates hold large uncertainties and few capture the socio-economic bounds. Furthermore, the uptake of NCS remains slow and information on the enabling factors needed for successful implementation, co-benefits, and trade-offs of these activities remain underrepresented at scale. As such, we present a systematic review that synthesizes and maps the bottom-up evidence on the contextual factors that influence the implementation of NCS in the peer-reviewed literature. Drawing from a large global collection of (primarily case study-based, N=211) research, this study (1) clarifies the definition of NCS, including in the context of nature-based solutions and other ecosystem-based approaches to addressing climate change; (2) provides an overview of the current state of literature, including research trends, opportunities, gaps, and biases; and (3) critically reflects on factors that may affect implementation in different geographies. We find that the content of the reviewed studies overwhelmingly focuses on tropical regions and activities in forest landscapes. We observe that implementation of NCS rely, not on one factor, but a suite of interlinked enabling factors. Specifically, engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC), performance-based finance, and technical assistance are important drivers of NCS implementation. While the broad categories of factors mentioned in the literature are similar across regions, the combination of factors and how and for whom they are taken up remains heterogeneous globally, and even within countries. Thus our results highlight the need to better understand what trends may be generalizable to inform best practices in policy discussions and where more nuance may be needed for interpreting research findings and applying them outside of their study contexts.

show abstract

Moral Conflicts of several “Green” terrestrial Negative Emission Technologies regarding the Human Right to Adequate Food – A Review

Abstract: Several terrestrial Negative

Cited by 2 publications

References 31 publications

Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment

Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment

What influences the implementation of natural climate solutions? A systematic map and review of the evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About