A Precautionary Assessment of Systemic Projections and Promises From Sunlight Reflection and Carbon Removal Modeling.
Carbon dioxide removal
modeling projections
precautionary measures
solar radiation management
systemic risk
Journal
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
ISSN: 1539-6924
Titre abrégé: Risk Anal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
revised:
01
07
2020
received:
04
11
2019
accepted:
05
07
2020
pubmed:
30
7
2020
medline:
20
10
2022
entrez:
30
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Climate change is a paradigmatic example of systemic risk. Recently, proposals for large-scale interventions-carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM)-have started to redefine climate governance strategies. We describe how evolving modeling practices are trending toward optimized and "best-case" projections-portraying deployment schemes that create both technically slanted and politically sanitized profiles of risk, as well as ideal objectives for CDR and SRM as mitigation-enhancing, time-buying mechanisms for carbon transitions or vulnerable populations. As promises, stylized and hopeful projections may selectively reinforce industry and political activities built around the inertia of the carbon economy. Some evidence suggests this is the emerging case for certain kinds of CDR, where the prospect of future carbon capture substitutes for present mitigation. Either of these implications are systemic: explorations of climatic futures may entrench certain carbon infrastructures. We point out efforts and recommendations to forestall this trend in the implementation of the Paris Agreement, by creating more stakeholder input and strengthening political realism in modeling and other assessments, as well as through policy guardrails.
Substances chimiques
Carbon Dioxide
142M471B3J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1965-1979Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
Références
Asayama, S., & Hulme, M. (2019). Engineering climate debt: Temperature overshoot and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending. Climate Policy, 19(8), 937-946. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623165
Asayama, S., Sugiyama, M., Ishii, A., & Kosugi, T. (2019). Beyond solutionist science for the Anthropocene: To navigate the contentious atmosphere of solar geoengineering. The Anthropocene Review, 6(1-2), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/20530119619843678
Bäckstrand, K., Meadowcroft, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2011). The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: Framing and emergent technology. Global Environmental Change, 21, 275-281.
Ban-Weiss, G. A, & Caldeira, K (2010). Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environmental Research Letters, 5(3), 034009.
Beck, S., & Mahoy, M. (2018). The politics of anticipation: The IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience. Global Sustainability, 1, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.7
Belaia, M. (unpublished). Optimal climate strategy with mitigation, carbon removal and solar geoengineering. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02043
Bellamy, R. (2018). Incentivize negative emissions responsibly. Nature Energy, 3, 532-534.
Beuttler, C., Wurzbacher, J., & Charles, L. (2019). The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Frontiers in Climate, 1, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00010/full
Boyd, P. W. & Vivian, C.M.G. (Eds.). (2019). High level review of a wide range of proposed marine geoengineering techniques. (Report Study GESAMP No. 98) London: International Maritime Organization.
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W., Garten, D., Heck, V., Lenton, T. M., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017). The limits to global-warming mitigation by terrestrial carbon removal. Earth's Future, 5, 463-474, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000469.
Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000). Contested FUTURES: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.
Buck, H. J. (2016). Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: Social barriers and social implications. Climatic Change, 139(2), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6
Buck, H. J., Martin, L. J., Geden, O., Kareiva, P., Koslov, L., Krantz, W., … Talati, S. (2020). Evaluating the efficacy and equity of environmental stopgap measures. Nature Sustainability, 3, 499-504 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0497
Butnar, I., Lin, P. H., Srachan, N., Pereira, J. P., Gambhir, A., & Smith, P. (2019). A deep dive into the modeling assumptions for biomass with carbon capture and sotratge (BECCS): A transparency exercise. Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5c3e
Calel, R. (2016). Carbon markets: A historical overview. WIRES Climate Change, 4, 107-119.
Carton, W. (2019). ‘Fixing’ climate change by mortgaging the future: Negative emissions, spatiotemporal fixes, and the political economy of delay. Antipode, 51(3), 750-769.
Cointe, B., Cassen, C., & Nadaï, A. (2020). Organizing policy-relevant knowledge for climate action: Integrated assessment modeling, the IPCC, and the emergence of a collective expertise on socioeconomic emission scenarios. Science & Technology Studies, 32(4), 36-57.
Corry, O. (2017). The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. Security Dialogue, 48(4), 297-315.
Craik, N., & Burns, W. C. G. (2019). Climate engineering under the Paris Agreement. Environmental Law Institute. Retrieved from https://elr.info/news-analysis/49/11113/climate-engineering-under-paris-agreement
Creutzig, F., Corbera, E., Bolwig, S., & Hunsberger, C. (2013). Integrating place-specific livelihood and equity outcomes into global assessments of bioenergy deployment. Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 035047. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035047
Eastham, S. D., Weisenstein, D. K., Keith, D. W., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2018). Quantifying the impact of sulfate geoengineering on mortality from air quality and UV-B exposure. Atmospheric Environment, 187, 424-434.
Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga R., Sokona Y., Farahani E., Kadner S., & Minx J.C., (Eds.) (2014). Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. (pp. 1357-1370) Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Edenhofer & Minx (2014). Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Science, 345, 37-38. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255998
Edenhofer, O, & Kowarsch, M (2015). Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 56-64.
Edwards, P. N. (2010). A vast machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ellenbeck, S, & Lilliestam, J (2019). How modelers construct energy costs: Discursive elements in Energy System and Integrated Assessment Models. Energy Research and Social Science, 47, 69-77.
Ferraro, A. J., Charlton-Perez, A. J., & Highwood, E. J. (2014). A risk-based framework for assessing the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e88849.
Flegal, J. (2018). The Evidentiary Politics of the Geoengineering Imaginary. (Doctoral dissertation), Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4887x5kh
Flegal, J. A., & Gupta, A. (2018). Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. International Environmental Agreements, 18, 45-61.
Forster, J., Vaughan, N. E., Gough, C., Lorenzoni, I., & Chilvers, J. (2020). Mapping feasibilities of greenhouse gas removal: Key issues, gaps, and opening up assessments. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102073.
Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA) (2020). New scenarios and models for climate engineering. Retrieved from http://ceassessment.org/new-scenarios-and-models-for-climate-engineering/
Fridahl, M, & Lehtveer, M (2018). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Research & Social Science, 42, 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019.
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., … Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
Gambhir, A, Butnar, I, Li P, H, Smith, P, & Srachan, N (2019). A review of criticisms of integrated asessemt models and proposed approaches to address these, through the lens of BECCS. Energies, 12(9), https://doi.org/10.3390/en12091747.
Geden, O. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. WIREs Climate Change, 7(6), 790-797.
Geden, O., Peters, G. P., & Scott, V. (2019). Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union. Climate Policy, 19(4), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1536600
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.
Grieger, K. D., Felgenhauer, T., Renn, O., Wiener, J., & Borsuk, M. (2019). Emerging risk governance for stratospheric aerosol injection as a climate management technology. Environment Systems and Decisions, 39(4), 371-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-019-09730-6
Haikola, S., Hansson, A., & Anshelm, J. (2019). From polarization to reluctant acceptance-bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 16(1), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2019.1579740
Hale, B. (2012). The world that would have been: Moral hazard arguments against geoengineering. In C. Preston (Ed.), Reflecting sunlight: The ethics of solar radiation management. (pp. 113-131). Lanham MD: Rowman and LittleField.
Haszeldine, R. S., Flude, S., Johnson, G., & Scott, V. (2018). Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris Agreement commitments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376, 20160447.
Hausfather, Z., & Peters, G. (2020). Emissions-the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature, 577, 618-620.
Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W., & Popp, A. (2018). Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change, 8, 151-155.
Holl, K. D., & Brancalion, P. H. (2020). Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science, 368(6491), 580-581.
Honegger, M., & Reiner, D. (2018). The political economy of negative emissions technologies: Consequences for international policy design. Climate Policy, 18(3), 306-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1413322
Horton, J. B., & Keith, D. W. (2016). Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In C. J. Preston (Ed.), Climate justice and geoengineering: Ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 79-92). London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Horton, J. B., & Keith, D. W., & Honegger, M. (2016). Implications of the Paris Agreement for carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Harvard project on climate agreements. Retrieved from www.belfercenter.org
IRGC. (2015). IRGC guidelines for emerging risk governance: guidance for the governance of unfamiliar risks. Retrieved from www.irgc.org.
IRGC. (2018). IRGC guidelines for the governance of systemic risks: In systems and organizations in the context of transitions. Retrieved from www.irgc.org
Irvine, P. J., & Keith, D. W. (2020). Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards. Environmental Research Letters, 15(4), 044011. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de.
Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., & Muri, H. (2016). An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 815-833. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.423
Keith, D. W., & Irvine, P. J. (2016). Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks-A research hypothesis for the next decade. Earth's Future, 4(11), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000465
Keith, D. W., & MacMartin, D. G. (2015). A temporary, moderate and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2493
Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, N., Ji, D. Y., … Zickfeld, K. (2018). The Carbon Dioxide Removal Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP): Rationale and experimental protocol for CMIP6. Geoscientific Model Development, 11, 1122-1160.
Kravitz, B., Caldeira, K., Boucher, O., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Alterskjaer, K., … Yoon, J. H. (2013). Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(15), 8320-8332. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Oman, L., Stenchikov, G., & Marquardt, A. B. (2009). Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114, 1-7.
Krüger, T. (2017). Conflicts over carbon capture and storage in international climate governance. Energy Policy, 100, 58-67.
Kuchler, M. (2014). Sweet dreams (are made of cellulose): Sociotechnical imaginaries of second-generation bioenergy in the global debate. Ecological Economics, 107, 431-437.
Lipponen, J., McCulloch, S., Keeling, S., Stanley, T., Berghout, N., & Berly, T. (2017). The politics of large-scale CCS deployment. Energy Procedia, 114, 7581-7595.
Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., … Vasileiadou, E. (2015). Who speaks for the future of Earth?: How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 32, 211-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012
Low, S. (2017). Engineering imaginaries: Anticipatory foresight for solar radiation management governance. Science of the Total Environment, 580, 90-104.
Low, S., & Buck, H. J. (2020). The practice of responsible research and innovation in ‘climate engineering’. WIRES Climate Change, 11(3). e644. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.644
Low, S., & Schäfer, S. (2019). Tools of the trade: Practices and politics of researching the future in climate engineering. Sustainability Science, 14(4), 953-962.
Low, S., & Schäfer, S. (2020). Is bioenergy carbon capture and storage feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, 101326.
Luderer, G., Vrontsi, Z., Bertram, C., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Pietzcker, R. C., Rogelj, J., … Kriegler, E. (2018). Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5-Pathways. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6
MacMartin, D. G., Caldeira, K., & Keith, D. W. (2014). Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372, 20140134.
MacMartin, D. G., & Kravitz, B. (2019). Mission-driven research for stratosheric aerosol geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 116(4), 1089-1094.
MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., & Keith, D. W. (2018). Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 degrees C Paris target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119), 20160454. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454
Mahajan, A., Tingley, D., & Wagner, G. (2019). Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering. Environmental Politics, 25(4), 1-21.
Markusson, N. O., Ginn, F., Ghaleigh, N. S., & Scott, V. (2014). ‘In case of emergency press here’: Framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 5, 281-290.
Markusson, N. O., McLaren, D., & Tyfield, D. (2018). Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). Global Sustainability, 1(10), 1-9.
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Poertner, H. O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., & … Waterfield, T. (Eds.), (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (pp. 32). Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization
McKinnon, C. (2019). The Panglossian politics of the geoclique. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23(5), 584-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1694216
McLaren, D. (2016). Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management. Earth's Future, 4(12), 596-602. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000445
McLaren, D. (2018). Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.021
McLaren, D., & Markusson, N. (2020). The co-evolution of technological promises, modeling, policies and climate change targets. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 392-397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0740-1
McLaren, D., Tyfield, D. P., Willis, R., Szerszynski, B., & Markusson, N. O. (2019). Beyond “net-zero”: A case for separate targets for emissions reduction and negative emissions. Frontiers Climate Change, 1, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00004
Michaelowa, A., Allen, M., & Sha, F. (2018). Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C-can humanity rise to the challenge? Climate Policy, 18(3), 275-286.
Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Fuss, S., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., … del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
Nemet, G. F., Callaghan, M. W., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Hartmann, J., Hilaire, J., … Smith, P. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4
Nowack, P. J., Abraham, N. L., Braesicke, P., & Pyle, J. A. (2016). Stratospheric ozone changes under solar geoengineering: Implications for UV exposure and air quality. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 4191-4203.
Parker, A., Horton, J. B., & Keith, D. W. (2018). Stopping solar geoengineering through technical means: A preliminary assessment of counter-geoengineering. Earth's Future, 6, 1058-1065. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000864
Parson, E. A. (2008). Useful global change scenarios: Current issues and challenges. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 045016.
Parson, E. A., & Ernst, L. (2013). International governance of climate engineering. Theoretical Inquiries into Law, 14(1), 307-338. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2013-015
Parson, E. A., & Keith, D. W. (2013). End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science, 339, 1278-1279.
Preston, C. J. (2013). Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.198.
Pinto, I., Jack, C., Lennard, C., Tilmes, S., & Odoulami, R. C. (2020). Africa's climate response to solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosol. Geophysical Research Letters, 47, e2019GL086047. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086047
Rabitz, F. (2016). Going rogue? Scenarios for unilateral geoengineering. Futures, 84, 98-107.
Reynolds, J. L. (2014). A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. The Anthropocene Review, 2(2), 174-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614554304
Reynolds, J. L., Contreras, J. L., & Sarnoff, J. D. (2017). Solar climate engineering and intellectual property: Toward a research commons. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 18(1), 1-110.
Reynolds, J. L., & Wagner, G. (2019). Highly decentralized solar geoengineering. Environmental Politics, 4(3), S1-17.https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O'Neill, B., Fujimori, S., … Tavoni, M. (2017). The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153-168.
Rickels, W., Merk, C., Reith, F., Keller, D., & Oschlies, A. (2019). (Mis)conceptions about modelling of negative emissions technologies. Environmental Research Letters, 14(10), 104004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3ab4
Robock, A., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2008). Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D16101.
Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K. V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, E., … Tavoni, M. (2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 325-332. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
Salter, J., Robinson, J., & Wiek, A. (2010). Participatory methods of integrated assessment-A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(5), 697-717. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.73
Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 5(5), 889-907.
Schneider, S. L. (1997). Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions? Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2, 229-249.
Schweizer, P. J. (2019). Systemic risks: Concepts and challenges for risk governance. Journal of Risk Research, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1687574
Shepherd, J., Caldeira, K., Cox, P., Haigh, J., Keith, D. W., Launder, B., … Watson, A. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.
Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B., … Yongsung, C. (2016). Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870
Stavrakas, V., Spyridaki, N. A., & Flamos, A. (2018). Striving towards the development of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): A review of research priorities and assessment needs. Sustainability, 10, 2206.
Stilgoe, J. (2015). Experiment earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering. New York: Routledge.
Talberg, A., Thomas, S., Christoff, P., & Karoly, D. (2018). How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations. Sustainability Science, 13, 1-12.
Torvanger, A. (2019). Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Accounting, rewarding, and the Paris agreement. Climate Policy, 19(3), 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1509044
Van Vuuren, D. P., Hof, A. F., van Sluisveld, M. A. E., & Riahi, K. (2017). Open discussion of negative emissions is urgently needed. Nature Energy, 2, 902-904.
Van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D. E., Van Den Berg, M., Bijl, D. L., De Boer, H. S., … Hof, A. F. (2018). Alternative pathways to the 1.5 C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change, 8(5), 391-397.
Vaughan, N. E., Gough, C., Mander, S., Littleton, E. W., Welfle, A., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02
Voß, J. P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (2009). Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition. Policy Sciences, 42, 275-302.
Waller, L., Rayner, T., Chilvers, J., Gough, C. A., Lorenzoni, I., Jordan, A., & Vaughan, N. (2020). Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions. WIREs Climate Change, 11(4). e649 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.649
Wiertz, T. (2015). Visions of climate control: Solar radiation management in climate simulations. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(3) 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915606524