The trouble with negative emissions

By Kevin Anderson, G. P. Peters. Science, 2016

999 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d74c90b4a17c4e27f58bea1f4b2f58c1ed34589

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. Wim Carton
2. Jason Hickel
3. J. Kuriakose
4. A. Larkin
5. Maria Sharmina
6. M. Callaghan
7. K. O’Brien
8. Sabine Fuss

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Pete Smith
2. Charlie Wilson
3. Gunnar Luderer
4. Felix Creutzig
5. D. V. van Vuuren
6. Wim Carton
7. Jason Hickel
8. Gregory F. Nemet

In Global and Planetary Change

1. H. Haberl
2. Wim Carton
3. Jason Hickel
4. Sabine Fuss
5. J. Minx
6. W. Lamb
7. M. Callaghan
8. H. Meijl

Citations in the corpus

• Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling (2018, background): “(thus raising moral hazard), and that they raise considerable procedural and distributive justice concerns (Anderson and Peters 2016, Shue 2017). These issues may significantly influence the public acceptability of individual NETs, as well as a NETs strategy in general, although they are rarely disc”
• Is Green Growth Possible? (2019, neutral): “’ Anderson and Peters (2016) point out that the ‘allure’ of BECCS is due to the fact that it allows politicians to postpone the need for rapid emissions reductions: ‘BECCS licenses the ongoing combustion of fossil fuels while ostensibly fulfilling the Paris Commitments.’”
• A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part I: bibliometric and conceptual mapping (2020, background): “This is supported by the IPCC demonstrating that energy efficiency and demand-side measures entail less risks and offer a range of co-benefits to societies compared to technological fixes (Edenhofer et al 2014, Anderson and Peters 2016).”
• Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects (2018, background): “As section 2 has shown, BECCS features prominently in the IAM scenario literature and has been subject to considerable scrutiny since the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014 (Fuss et al 2014, Anderson and Peters 2016).”
• Comparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050 (2018, background): “…targets is conditional on the large-scale availability of negative emissions technologies, in particular carbon sequestration through afforestation and bioenergy systems connected to carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in the second half of the century (Clarke et al 2014, Anderson and Peters 2016).”
• Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change (2021, neutral): “…neutrality without cutting emis - sion production, thus slowing global progress towards net-zero while encouraging customers to drive or fly more, or to view mitigation policies generally as being less necessary (Anderson & Peters, 2016; Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017; Daggash & Mac Dowell, 2019).”
• What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris Agreement for big emitting nations (2018, background): “…exist in the literature, the IAM approach typically underplays the scope and importance of near- term mitigation and in particular the socio-technical opportunities for reducing energy demand as a way to reduce mitigation rates in later years (Anderson & Bows, 2011; Anderson & Peters, 2016).”
• The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design (2018, neutral): “…terms that have to date been used are relatively neutral (e.g. ‘ backstop technology ’ ) or hopeful (e.g. ‘ Plan B ’ ), whereas many others are dismissive, derisive or otherwise negative (e.g. ‘ unicorn ’ , ‘ dead end road ’ , ‘ magical thinking ’ , or ‘ moral hazard ’ ) (Anderson & Peters, 2016).”
• Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality (2021, background): “In response to the ever-increasing global greenhouse effect, all countries signed a landmark United Nations climate agreement in Paris on December 12, 2015, to jointly tackle GHG emissions and combat climate change.(11) Under the 2015 Paris agreement, all countries agreed to keep warming below 2.”
• The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: Growth versus ecology on a finite planet (2019, background): “endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10‐year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead.” The SDGs rely on this objective to reconcile the tension between economic growth and ecol”