Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways

Lieske Voget-Kleschin; Christian Baatz; Clare Heyward; Detlef Van Vuuren; Nadine Mengis

doi:10.1017/sus.2023.21

Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways

Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Christian Baatz, Clare Heyward, Detlef Van Vuuren, Nadine Mengis^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Non-technical summary
Scenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.

Technical summary
The 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.

Social media summary
Policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.

Original language	English
Article number	e1
Number of pages	11
Journal	Global Sustainability
Volume	7
Early online date	Jan 2024
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2023.21
Publication status	Published - 5 Jan 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Funding

Nadine Mengis is funded under the Emmy Noether scheme by the German Research Foundation ‘FOOTPRINTS – From carbOn remOval To achieving the PaRIs agreemeNt's goal: Temperature Stabilisation’ (ME 5746/1-1). Clare Heyward's contribution was supported by both CEMICS2 (Contextualising Climate Engineering, Mitigation, Illusion, Complement or Substitute) SPP 1689, German Research Foundation, and the Institute for Future Studies project: ‘Climate Ethics and Future Generations’, funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (grant number M17-0372:1). Christian Baatz is funded via project ADJUST (01UU2001) that is part of the funding line ‘Social-Ecological Research’ within the framework strategy ‘Research for Sustainability’ (FONA) by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF). Lieske Voget-Kleschin acknowledges the financial support by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) in the framework of ASMASYS (03F0898D), one of the six research consortia of the German Marine Research Alliance (DAM) research mission ‘Marine carbon sinks in decarbonisation pathways’ (CDRmare). Detlef Van Vuuren acknowledges funding support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the Horizon Europe program (PICASSO project; grant agreement ID 819566).

Funders	Funder number
ADJUST	01UU2001
German Marine Research Alliance
Institute for Future Studies
HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme	ID 819566
European Research Council
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft	ME 5746/1-1
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung	03F0898D
Riksbankens Jubileumsfond	M17-0372:1
Direction des applications militaires

Keywords

adaptation and mitigation
human behavior
modeling and simulation
policies
politics and governance
social value

UN SDGs

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

Access to Document

10.1017/sus.2023.21Licence: CC BY

reassessing-the-need-for-carbon-dioxide-removal-moral-implications-of-alternative-climate-target-pathwaysFinal published version, 226 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{1ce0520d1c914ec1b5548cdcfc1d6d14,

title = "Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways",

abstract = "Non-technical summaryScenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.Technical summaryThe 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.Social media summaryPolicy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.",

keywords = "adaptation and mitigation, human behavior, modeling and simulation, policies, politics and governance, social value",

author = "Lieske Voget-Kleschin and Christian Baatz and Clare Heyward and Vuuren, {Detlef Van} and Nadine Mengis",

note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press.",

year = "2024",

month = jan,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1017/sus.2023.21",

language = "English",

volume = "7",

journal = "Global Sustainability",

issn = "2059-4798",

publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways

AU - Voget-Kleschin, Lieske

AU - Baatz, Christian

AU - Heyward, Clare

AU - Vuuren, Detlef Van

AU - Mengis, Nadine

PY - 2024/1/5

Y1 - 2024/1/5

N2 - Non-technical summaryScenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.Technical summaryThe 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.Social media summaryPolicy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.

AB - Non-technical summaryScenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.Technical summaryThe 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.Social media summaryPolicy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.

KW - adaptation and mitigation

KW - human behavior

KW - modeling and simulation

KW - policies

KW - politics and governance

KW - social value

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183300701&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/sus.2023.21

DO - 10.1017/sus.2023.21

M3 - Review article

SN - 2059-4798

VL - 7

JO - Global Sustainability

JF - Global Sustainability

M1 - e1

ER -

Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this