To date, international efforts to mitigate climate change have not been sufficient to limit global warming enough to avoid the harmful effects of climate change. As a result, the international community is now discussing the use of carbon capture technologies to reduce emissions. So far, such technologies have not been widely adopted, in part because of concerns that widespread use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) could create a “moral hazard”: policymakers and the general public might assume that such technologies are sufficient to adequately address climate change, and therefore that no further mitigation efforts are needed. However, the resulting inaction on CDR methods has far-reaching consequences, as climate change that could have been halted by the use of CDR continues to accelerate.
Inaction on carbon capture technology
To date, international efforts to mitigate climate change have not been sufficient to limit global warming enough to avoid the harmful effects of climate change. As a result, the international community is now discussing the use of carbon capture technologies to reduce emissions. So far, such technologies have not been widely adopted, in part because of concerns that widespread use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) could create a “moral hazard”: policymakers and the general public might assume that such technologies are sufficient to adequately address climate change, and therefore that no further mitigation efforts are needed. However, the resulting inaction on CDR methods has far-reaching consequences, as climate change that could have been halted by the use of CDR continues to accelerate.
- Climate & Atmosphere
- Changing the Climate System
- Inaction on Geoengineering
None
Inaction on carbon capture technology
Under the Australian government’s Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), that began in 2014, local farmers receive incentives to change for management practices that will increase their soil carbon (C) stock and earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). This practice is projected to have an abattment of around 17 to 103 Mt CO2 equivalent annually up to 2050. However, even with such projections, studies acknowledge the risk that with incentives for carbon sequestration practices business will not make the effort to invest in alternative energy sources an reduce their emissions at source.
- The problem-shift had no effect on the efforts to address the initial problem
- Cascading (far-reaching effects following each other)
White, R. E. (2022). The role of soil carbon sequestration as a climate change mitigation strategy: An australian case study. Soil Systems, 6(2), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems6020046
Australian Government – Clean Energy Regulator (2018). Emissions Reduction Fund, Annual Report 2017-2018. ustralian Government – Clean Energy Regulator. https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About/Pages/Accountability%20and%20reporting/Annual%20Reports/Annual%20Report%202017-18/Emissions-Reduction-Fund.aspx#:~:text=The%20Emissions%20Reduction%20Fund%20began%20in%20late%202014.
Wennersten, R., Sun, Q., & Li, H. (2015). The future potential for Carbon Capture and Storage in climate change mitigation–an overview from perspectives of technology, economy and risk. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 724-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.023
Hart, P. S., Campbell-Arvai, V., Wolske, K. S., & Raimi, K. T. (2022). Moral hazard or not? The effects of learning about carbon dioxide removal on perceptions of climate mitigation in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102656
Campbell-Arvai, V., Hart, P. S., Raimi, K. T., & Wolske, K. S. (2017). The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support for mitigation policies. Climatic Change, 143, 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
Questions/comments