Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

Standard

Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? / Carton, Wim; Hougaard, Inge-Merete; Markusson, Nils; Lund, Jens Friis.

In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 14, No. 4, e826, 2023.

Research output: Contribution to journalReviewResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Carton, W, Hougaard, I-M, Markusson, N & Lund, JF 2023, 'Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?', Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 14, no. 4, e826. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826

APA

Carton, W., Hougaard, I-M., Markusson, N., & Lund, J. F. (2023). Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 14(4), [e826]. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826

Vancouver

Carton W, Hougaard I-M, Markusson N, Lund JF. Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2023;14(4). e826. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.826

Author

Carton, Wim ; Hougaard, Inge-Merete ; Markusson, Nils ; Lund, Jens Friis. / Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?. In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 2023 ; Vol. 14, No. 4.

Bibtex

@article{8d261c1ae565475980b50fb8dca815ac,
title = "Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?",
abstract = "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 real-world 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.",
author = "Wim Carton and Inge-Merete Hougaard and Nils Markusson and Lund, {Jens Friis}",
year = "2023",
doi = "10.1002/wcc.826",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change",
issn = "1757-7780",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is carbon removal delaying emission reductions?

AU - Carton, Wim

AU - Hougaard, Inge-Merete

AU - Markusson, Nils

AU - Lund, Jens Friis

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - 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 real-world 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.

AB - 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 real-world 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.

U2 - 10.1002/wcc.826

DO - 10.1002/wcc.826

M3 - Review

VL - 14

JO - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

JF - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

SN - 1757-7780

IS - 4

M1 - e826

ER -

ID: 333711137