The ethics of negative emissions
Open accessAbstract
Non-technical abstract: Limiting dangerous climate change is widely believed to require negative emissions. This prospect has sparked concerns about whether negative emissions could be scaled up quickly enough, along with concerns about their likely ethical costs. Building upon scenario modelling, this paper examines ethical concerns with negative emissions via the comparison of three alternate climate futures. This paper shows that the severity of concerns depends upon implementation conditions, and especially the extent of deferred mitigation. Negative emissions can be a valuable means of limiting dangerous climate change, or an unjust gamble against the future.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There remains a debate on the social, economic and technical feasibility as well as the risk associated with large-scale deployment of negative emissions.
“The significant role of negative emissions in meeting climate targets is understood and appreciated amongst academics, scientists and policymakers; however, there still remains a debate on the social, economic and technical feasibility as well as the risk associated with large-scale deployment (Lenzi 2018).”
From Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review (2020) · cites this paper as Lenzi 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 84
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25, 245-284.
- Hamilton C (2013) Earthmasters. Yale University Press.
- Authors
- Lenzi, D.
- Affiliations
- Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lenzi, Dominic
- ORCID
- Lenzi, Dominic
- Venue
- Global Sustainability
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 1
- ISSN
- 2059-4798 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2883305163
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 12.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Global Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- carbon dioxide removal, climate ethics, dangerous climate change, future climate scenarios, scenario modeling, climate change mitigation, implementation conditions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
