Betting on negative emissions

By Sabine Fuss, J. Canadell, G. P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, R. B. Jackson, Chris D. Jones, F. Kraxner, N. Nakićenović and 5 more. 2014

991 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9661f4ee040b271b6b01db65fd16d3c69a706fc

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Robbie M. Andrew
2. J. Minx
3. G. P. Peters
4. Jason Hickel
5. Felix Creutzig
6. Pete Smith
7. W. Lamb
8. Dominik Wiedenhofer

In Global and Planetary Change

1. H. Haberl
2. G. P. Peters
3. Jason Hickel
4. W. Lamb
5. Sabine Fuss
6. J. Minx
7. Robbie M. Andrew
8. Pete Smith

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Daniel Hausknost
2. Gregory F. Nemet
3. D. Tyfield
4. Lutz Bornmann
5. Yoshua Bengio
6. Jason Hickel
7. C. Gough
8. Joeri Rogelj

Citations in the corpus

• Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs) (2018, background): “This has helped sustain high-level policy conclusions (most recently in Paris [10]) that climate targets can be met through a managed transition based on energy efficiency, low-carbon energy technologies and NETs, without abrupt and (politically and economically) disruptive transformations in energy”
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers (2018, background): “This underlines what is also often explicitly stated in the literature [9,41]: climate scenarios need to be interpreted cautiously.”
• 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).”
• The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions (2018, background): “…195 nations have agreed to limit the global average temperature increase to ‘well below 2 °C’ under the December 2015 Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015), most current pathways to stay under the 2 °C limit assume the future use of unproven technologies to achieve negative emissions (Fuss et al 2014).”
• “Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay (2019, neutral): “…al. 2018; Smith and Torn 2013), and would need to resolve current uncertainties pertaining to the safe and long-term underground storage of carbon (Fuss et al. 2014), the level of emissions associated with land-use change (Harper et al. 2018), the economics of rapidly scaling up an as yet…”
• Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage (2018, background): “On the other hand, returning the ashes and minerals to the soil with the biochar will likely deliver a “mineral weathering” CCS contribution to CDR, which would need to be further explored and quantified.”
• Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions (2015, background): “These technologies are immature (CCS) or untested (BECCS), but are the foundation of most scenarios consistent with 2 °C (Fuss et al 2014).”