About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

13 CCLR 104 (2019)
Governing a Mirage: False Promises of Negative Emissions Technologies

handle is hein.journals/cclr2019 and id is 119 raw text is: CCLR 212019 Governing a Mirage? False Promises of Negative Emissions Technologies Daniel Compagnon* By deconstructing the discourse on the inevitability of negative emissions technologies to meet the 2C target contained in the Paris agreement, showing in particular how this tech- nological promise is framed as a'technofix, this paper challenges the literature actively pro- moting NETs. Not only is the promise refuted by the numerous problems generated by NETs implementation, but the risk of undermining ongoing mitigation efforts cannot be signifi- cantly reduced by governance designing. Alternative pathways for effective mitigation which rely on significant societal change are both possible and meaningful. 1. Introduction Climate engineering has generated a lot of controver sy since Paul Crutzen's milestone publication, and many environmentalists object to it on moral and/or scientific grounds.2 Against this background of con- troversy, a new narrative has emerged among both climate scientists and policy makers presenting Neg- ative Emission Technologies (NETs) as an effective and less contentious means to prevent the global mean temperature from rising beyond the 2C Of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Indeed, most emissions scenarios compatible with the Paris agreement3 objectives rely heavily on NETs, in spite of the lack of evidence so far that these technologies can deliver at the scale envisaged by the IPCC. NETs constitute a subset of geoengineering tech- niques that include all forms of intentional alteration of the Earth's climate. Indeed, some technologies DOI: 10.21552/cclr/2019/2/5 Daniel Compagnon is Professor of Political Science at Sciences Po Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux. For correspondence: <d .compagnon@sciencespobordeaux.fr>. The author acknowledges the support of INOGOV, COST Action SI 309, which fully funded the workshop where this paper was originally presented and discussed. 1 Paul J Crutzen, 'Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?' (2006) Climatic Change 77(3), 211-220. 2 Mike Hulme, Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering (Polity Press 2014); Clive Hamilton, Earthmas- ters: the dawn of the age of climate engineering (Yale University Press 2013); ETC Group, Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengi- neering (ETC 2010) <http://www.etcgroup.org/content/geopiracy -case-against-geoengineering> accessed 15 September 2017. 3 In the Paris Agreement the phrase 'removals by sinks of green- house gases' in article 4.1, and the commitment to 'conserve and such as ocean fertilisation (enhancing carbon capture capacities in deep waters) are alternately classified as NETs or as geoengineering. However, carbon re- moving technologies (CDR) such as Direct Air Cap- ture (DAC) of CO2 or Biomass Energy Carbon Cap- ture and Storage (BECCS) cannot be confused with Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies - eg the injection of sulfur particles in the stratosphere - aiming at enhancing the albedo effect. Their respec- tive environmental impacts, feasibility prospects and costs are dissimilar.4 Some of the proposed NETs - eg reforestation and afforestation - are not so different from classical mitigation strategies.5 Both NETs and geoengineering are 'too broad or too vague' as cate- gories to be analytically useful,6 and one should as- sess technical feasibility and effects at different scales on a case by case basis, including specific implica- tions in terms of legitimacy, acceptability and respon- sibility.7 enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases' in art 5.1 (referring to art 4) are usually understood as referring to NETs. However, art 5 of the same text cites forests as an example, suggesting that it is more about enhancing naturals sinks than promoting CDR technologies as such. 4 National Research Council (NRC), Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (The National Acad- emies Press 2015). 5 John Virgoe, 'International governance of a possible geoengineer- ing intervention to combat climate change' (2009) Climatic Change 95(12), 104. Citing DW Keith. 6 Clare Heyward, 'Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change' (2013) Political Science & Politics 46(1), 26. 7 Ian D Lloyd and Michael Oppenheimer, 'On the Design of an International Governance Framework for Geoengineering' (2014) Global Environmental Politics 14(2), 45-63. 104 |1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most