4.7 Article

The policy discourse on negative emissions, land-based technologies, and the Global South

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102550

Keywords

Negative emissions; Discourse analysis; Carbon dioxide removal; Global South; BECCS; Afforestation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Negative emissions are increasingly seen as a policy option to limit climate change. However, the most readily available technologies that could deliver negative emissions require large amounts of land and pose significant risks for livelihoods and the environment. The policy discourse on negative emissions is mainly centered in the Global North, with limited attention given to the Global South.
Negative emissions are increasingly seen as a policy option to limit climate change. However, the most readily available technologies that could deliver negative emissions require, if deployed at scale, large amounts of land, with huge risks for livelihoods and the environment. This land is often assumed to be in the Global South. This article analyzes the nascent policy discourse on negative emissions by assessing 116 policy documents by 97 organizations with a focus on land-based technologies (afforestation and reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, soil carbon sequestration). We conclude that this policy discourse is largely centered in the Global North (mostly in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), with only five organizations directly linked to the Global South. 61% of the organizations in our sample, however, somehow refer to the Global South in their contributions, with nongovernmental organizations being most strongly focused on the role of the Global South and in particular the risks for vulnerable countries. While the earlier policy discourse on negative emissions was linked to a more general geoengineering discourse, this link has loosened in the last years. Overall, in the documents that we studied, negative emissions technologies seem to become more accepted, and parts of the discourse shift towards deployment. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage seems more often associated with risks if compared to other land-based negative emissions technologies, especially with a view to the Global South.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available