What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations

Abstract

A cumulative emissions approach is increasingly used to inform mitigation policy. However, there are different interpretations of what '2°C' implies. Here it is argued that cost-optimization models, commonly used to inform policy, typically underplay the urgency of 2°C mitigation. The alignment within many scenarios of optimistic assumptions on negative emissions technologies (NETs), with implausibly early peak emission dates and incremental short-term mitigation, delivers outcomes commensurate with 2°C commitments. In contrast, considering equity and sociotechnical barriers to change, suggests a more challenging short-term agenda. To understand these different interpretations, short-term CO 2 trends of the largest CO 2 emitters, are assessed in relation to a constrained CO 2 budget, coupled with a 'what if' assumption that negative emissions technologies fail at scale. The outcomes raise profound questions around high-level framings of mitigation policy. The article concludes that applying even weak equity criteria, challenges the feasibility of maintaining a 50% chance of avoiding 2°C without urgent mitigation efforts in the short-term. This highlights a need for greater engagement with: (1) the equity dimension of the Paris Agreement, (2) the sensitivity of constrained carbon budgets to short-term trends and (3) the climate risks for society posed by an almost ubiquitous inclusion of NETs within 2°C scenarios. POLICY RELEVANCE Since the Paris meeting, there is increased awareness that most policy 'solutions' commensurate with 2°C include widespread deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). Yet much less is understood about that option's feasibility, compared with near-term efforts to curb energy demand. Moreover, the many different ways in which key information is synthesized for policy makers, clouds the ability of policy makers to make informed decisions. This article presents an alternative approach to consider what the Paris Agreement implies, if NETs are unable to deliver more carbon sinks than sources. It illustrates the scale of the climate challenge for policy makers, particularly if the Agreement's aim to address 'equity' is accounted for. Here it is argued that much more attention needs to be paid to what CO 2 reductions can be achieved in the short-term, rather than taking a risk that could render the Paris Agreement's policy goals unachievable.

The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet

“…Third, the necessary CO2 storage capacity may not exist (De Coninck & Benson, ; Global CCS Institute, ). Anderson and Peters () conclude that “BECCS thus remains a highly speculative technology” and that relying on it is therefore “an unjust and high stakes gamble”; if it is unsuccessful, “society will be locked into a high‐temperature pathway.” This conclusion is shared by a growing number of scientists (e.g., Fuss et al, ; Vaughan & Gough, ; Larkin, Kuriakose, Sharmina, & Anderson, ; Van Vuuren et al, ), and by the European Academies Science Advisory Council ().…”

“Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay

“…As Larkin et al. (:692) note, “IAM outputs risk delivering overly optimistic, unrealistic and potentially flawed message about future change [in which] challenging, but incremental energy policy is sufficient to deliver on the Paris Agreement”. The negative emissions concept in this way helps in “masking political inaction” (Geden :794) and serves to legitimise mainstream climate policy in the face of 30 years of institutionalised delay.…”

Nationally Determined Contributions: Material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs

“…Other analyses of NDCs show the importance of early action and increased ambition to have any chance of meeting temperature targets (Boyd, Turner, & Ward, ; van Soest et al, ) and that reliance on reforestation, forest protection, land use, or bioenergy in NDCs is problematic and uncertain (Climate and Development Knowledge Network, ). Although most current NDCs do not mention CCS, the reliance on such “negative emissions” is a source of skepticism for Geden () who argues that such “magical thinking” resulted in the Paris Agreement managing “to adopt a 3°C agreement with a 1.5°C label” (p. 783) and for others who argue that negative emissions will not deliver (Anderson & Peters, ; Geden, ; Larkin, Kuriakose, Sharmina, & Anderson, ; Vaughan & Gough, ).…”