Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Concerns have been raised that a focus on greenhouse gas removals (GGR) in climate models, scientific literature and other media might deter measures to mitigate climate change through reduction of emissions at source – the phenomenon of ‘mitigation deterrence’. Given the urgent need for climate action, any delay in emissions reduction would be worrying. We convened nine deliberative workshops to expose stakeholders to futures scenarios involving mitigation deterrence. The workshops examined ways in which deterrence might arise, and how it could be minimized. The deliberation exposed social and cultural interactions that might otherwise remain hidden. The paper describes narratives and ideas discussed in the workshops regarding political and economic mechanisms through which mitigation deterrence might occur, the plausibility of such pathways, and measures recommended to reduce the risk of such occurrence. Mitigation deterrence is interpreted as an important example of the ‘attraction of delay’ in a setting in which there are many incentives for procrastination. While our stakeholders accepted the historic persistence of delay in mitigation, some struggled to accept that similar processes, involving GGRs, may be happening now. The paper therefore also reviews the claims made by participants about mitigation deterrence, identifying discursive strategies that advocates of carbon removal might deploy to deflect concerns about mitigation deterrence. We conclude that the problem of mitigation deterrence is significant, needs to be recognized in climate policy, and its mechanisms better understood. Based on stakeholder proposals we suggest ways of governing GGR which would maximize both GGR and carbon reduction through other means.
Highlights
Proposals to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere – referred to as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or carbon removal – are increasingly important to climate policy
In this paper we report findings from deliberative workshops regarding whether and in what ways stakeholders in carbon removal hold concerns about mitigation deterrence, the mechanisms which they see as plausible sources of delay, and the measures that they suggest might be taken to minimise negative impacts
Our findings suggest that there are good reasons to worry about mitigation deterrence, and that concerns about deterrence effects are widely shared amongst climate/GGR stakeholders
Summary
Proposals to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere – referred to as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or carbon removal – are increasingly important to climate policy. Others highlight the risks of relying on unproven or uncertain technologies, when promises of such technologies might deter or delay action to reduce emissions (Anderson and Peters, 2016; Fuss et al, 2014; McLaren, 2016). This latter problem has been termed ‘mitigation deterrence’ (Markusson et al, 2018; McLaren, 2016). Given the need for accelerated, far-reaching climate action, any delay resulting from carbon removal promises would be worrying
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
