On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions

Dominic Lenzi

doi:10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249

On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions

Dominic Lenzi^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	123-136
Number of pages	14
Journal	Ethics, Policy and Environment
Volume	24
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249
Publication status	Published - Feb 2021
Externally published	Yes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 13 Climate Action

Keywords

Carbon dioxide removal
Climate justice
Geoengineering
Negative emissions

Access to Document

10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249

Cite this

@article{10a357e19d2948f8b63334f37981eb7d,

title = "On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions",

abstract = "Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.",

keywords = "Carbon dioxide removal, Climate justice, Geoengineering, Negative emissions",

author = "Dominic Lenzi",

note = "Funding Information: I am grateful to Jan Minx and Sabine Fuss for my understanding of negative emissions, and especially to Henry Shue for discussion and comments upon an earlier draft. Remaining errors are my own. I also wish to thank participants at the European Consortium of Political Research in Oslo, 2017, and at the workshop on {\textquoteleft}Second-Best Solutions and Secondary Injustices{\textquoteright} at the University of Warwick, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor \& Francis Group.",

year = "2021",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249",

language = "English",

volume = "24",

pages = "123--136",

journal = "Ethics, Policy and Environment",

issn = "2155-0085",

publisher = "Taylor \& Francis",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions

AU - Lenzi, Dominic

N1 - Funding Information: I am grateful to Jan Minx and Sabine Fuss for my understanding of negative emissions, and especially to Henry Shue for discussion and comments upon an earlier draft. Remaining errors are my own. I also wish to thank participants at the European Consortium of Political Research in Oslo, 2017, and at the workshop on ‘Second-Best Solutions and Secondary Injustices’ at the University of Warwick, funded by the Leverhulme Trust. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

PY - 2021/2

Y1 - 2021/2

N2 - Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.

AB - Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.

KW - Carbon dioxide removal

KW - Climate justice

KW - Geoengineering

KW - Negative emissions

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85100892947

U2 - 10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249

DO - 10.1080/21550085.2021.1885249

M3 - Article

SN - 2155-0085

VL - 24

SP - 123

EP - 136

JO - Ethics, Policy and Environment

JF - Ethics, Policy and Environment

IS - 2

ER -

On the Permissibility (Or Otherwise) of Negative Emissions

Abstract

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this