Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions,WIREs Climate Change

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › WIREs Clim. Chang. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: Social and political dimensions
WIREs Climate Change ( IF 9.4 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-20 , DOI: 10.1002/wcc.649
Laurie Waller _{1,

2} , Tim Rayner _{1,

3} , Jason Chilvers _{1,

2} , Clair Amanda Gough ₄ , Irene Lorenzoni _{1,

2,

3} , Andrew Jordan _{1,

3} , Naomi Vaughan _{1,

3}

Affiliation

Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures.

中文翻译：

温室气体清除的争议框架及其可行性：社会和政治层面

大规模温室气体清除（GGR）的前瞻性方法现在是2020年后国际上致力于将全球温度升高限制在1.5°C之内的承诺的核心。但是，大规模GGR的可行性一直受到质疑。大多数系统分析仅关注大规模部署它在物理，技术和经济方面的挑战。但是，社会和政治方面对于期货如何发挥作用同样重要，甚至更为重要。我们对与大型GGR的社会和政治层面有关的国际同行评审文献进行了第一批评论，特别着重于两种主要方法：具有碳捕获和封存（BECCS）的生物质能以及造林/重新造林（AR）。我们对78项研究的分析提出了两个重要的见解。首先，它显示了GGR可行性的六个关键社会和政治维度，即经济和激励机制；革新; 社会参与；治理；复杂性和不确定性；道德，公平和正义–是可识别的，并且在文献中得到了不同程度的强调。其次，文献中对BECCS和AR及其可行性进行了三种有争议的方式：（a）a技术经济框架；（b）社会和政治可接受框架；（c）负责任的发展框架。我们建议，第三个框架将并且确实应该与气候期货的评估，创新和治理越来越相关。

更新日期：2020-05-20

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载

阅读更多本刊最新论文