Targeting carbon dioxide removal in the European Union

References

• Anderson, K., & Peters, G. P. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354, 182–183. doi: 10.1126/science.aah4567
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beland, D., & Howlett, M. (2016). How solutions chase problems: Instrument constituencies in the policy process. Governance, 29, 393–409. doi: 10.1111/gove.12179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R. (2018). Incentivize negative emissions responsibly. Nature Energy, 3, 532–534. doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0156-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, J., & Aalbers, R. (2017). Biomass-energy with carbon capture and storage should be used immediately. The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
   Google Scholar
• Böttcher, H., & Graichen, J. (2015). Impacts on the EU 2030 climate target of including LULUCF in the climate and energy policy framework. Berlin: Öko-Institut.
   Google Scholar
• Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T. R., Calvo, D., & Carson, M. (2009). Paradigms in public policy: Theory and practice of paradigm shifts in the EU. Berlin: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S., Shaner, M., Aggarwal, S., Arent, D., Azevedo, I. L., … Caldeira, K. (2018). Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science, 360, eaas9793. doi: 10.1126/science.aas9793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dooley, K., & Gupta, A. (2017). Governing by expertise: The contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17, 483–500. doi: 10.1007/s10784-016-9331-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETC Group, Biofuelwatch, & Heinrich Böll Foundation. (2017). The big bad fix: The case against climate geoengineering.
   Google Scholar
• European Academies Science Advisory Council. (2018). Negative emission technologies: What role in meeting Paris agreement targets? (EASAC Policy Report 35). Halle.
   Google Scholar
• Fridahl, M., & Lehtveer, M. (2018). Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): Global potential, investment preferences, and deployment barriers. Energy Research & Social Science, 42, 155–165. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuglestvedt, J., Rogelj, J., Millar, R. J., Allen, M., Boucher, O., Cain, M., … Shindell, D. (2018). Implications of possible interpretations of ‘greenhouse gas balance’ in the Paris agreement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 20160445. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. A., Ciais, P., … Yamagata, Y. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4, 850–853. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2392
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuss, S., Lamb, W., Callaghan, M., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., … Minx, J. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 063002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geden, O. (2016). An actionable climate target. Nature Geoscience, 9, 340–342. doi: 10.1038/ngeo2699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geden, O., & Fischer, S. (2014). Moving targets: Negotiations on the EU’s energy and climate policy objectives for the post-2020 period and implications for the German energy transition. Berlin, Germany: German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Geden, O., & Löschel, A. (2017). Define limits for temperature overshoot targets. Nature Geoscience, 10, 881–882. doi: 10.1038/s41561-017-0026-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA, 114, 11645–11650. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710465114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V., McCollum, D. L., … Valin, H. (2018). A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5°C target and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nature Energy, 3, 515–527. doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2014). Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change, 29, 395–403. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlsson, H., Delahaye, T., Johnsson, F., Kjärstad, J., & Rootz, J. (2017). Immediate deployment opportunities for negative emissions with BECCS: A Swedish case study. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07894v1 [physics.soc-ph]
   Google Scholar
• Kartha, S., & Dooley, K. (2016). The risks of relying on tomorrow’s ‘negative emissions’ to guide today’s mitigation action. Somerville, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute, US Center.
   Google Scholar
• Larkin, A., Kuriakose, J., Sharmina, M., & Anderson, K. (2018). What if negative emission technologies fail at scale? Implications of the Paris agreement for big emitting nations. Climate Policy, 18, 690–714. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2017.1346498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomax, G., Workman, M., Lenton, T., & Shah, N. (2015). Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies. Energy Policy, 78, 125–136. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luderer, G., Vrontisi, Z., Bertram, C., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Pietzcker, R. C., Rogelj, J., … Kriegler, E. (2018). Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2°C pathways. Nature Climate Change, 8, 626–633. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Climatic Change, 118, 137–149. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer-Ohlendorf, L., & Frelih-Larsen, A. (2017). EU climate policies: Friend, foe or bystander to forest restoration and carbon sinks? Berlin: Ecologic Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Minx, J., Lamb, W., Callaghan, M., Fuss, S., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., … del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 063001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemet, G. F., Callaghan, M. W., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Hartmann, J., Hilaire, J., … Smith, P. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 063003. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obersteiner, M., Bednar, J., Wagner, F., Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Forsell, N., … Schmidt-Traub, G. (2018). How to spend a dwindling greenhouse gas budget. Nature Climate Change, 8, 7–10. doi: 10.1038/s41558-017-0045-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberthür, S., & Groen, L. (2017). The European Union and the Paris agreement: Leader, mediator, or bystander? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8, e445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, G. P., & Geden, O. (2017). Catalysing a political shift from low to negative Carbon. Nature Climate Change, 7, 619–621. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3369
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye, S., Li, F. G. N., Price, J., & Fais, B. (2017). Achieving net-zero emissions through the reframing of UK national targets in the post-Paris agreement era. Nature Energy, 2, 17024. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robiou du Pont, Y., Jeffery, M. L., Gütschow, J., Rogelj, J., Christoff, P., & Meinshausen, M. (2017). Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris agreement goals. Nature Climate Change, 7, 38–43. doi: 10.1038/nclimate3186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal Society, & Royal Academy of Engineering. (2018). Greenhouse gas removal. London.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, D. L., & Kammen, D. M. (2016). A commercialization strategy for carbon-negative energy. Nature Energy, 1, 15002. doi: 10.1038/nenergy.2015.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäfer, S., Lawrence, M., Stelzer, H., Born, W., Low, S., Aaheim, A., … Vaughan, N. (2015). The European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE): Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reflecting sunlight away from Earth. Potsdam, Germany: EuTRACE.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, V. (2013). What can we expect from Europe’s carbon capture and storage demonstrations? Energy Policy, 54, 66–71. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, V., & Geden, O. (2018). The challenge of carbon dioxide removal for EU policy-making. Nature Energy, 3, 350–352. doi: 10.1038/s41560-018-0124-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shue, H. (2018). Mitigation gambles: Uncertainty, urgency and the last gamble possible. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376, 20170105. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2017.0105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Davis, S., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Benoit, G., … Yongsung, C. (2016). Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 42–50. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Friedmann, J., Amador, G., Bustamante, M., Cowie, A., Deich, N., … Minx, J. (2017). Bridging the gap – carbon dioxide removal. In The Emissions Gap Report 2017 (pp. 56–66). Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
   Google Scholar
• Solano Rodriguez, B., Drummond, P., & Ekins, P. (2017). Decarbonizing the EU energy system by 2050: An important role for BECCS. Climate Policy, 17, S93–S110. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1242058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Kriegler, E., Popp, A., Giannousakis, A., & Edenhofer, E. (2018). Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 044015. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aab2ba
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torvanger, A. (2018). Governance of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): accounting, rewarding, and the Paris agreement. Climate Policy, 18. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1509044
   Google Scholar
• van Vuuren, D. P., Stehfest, E., Gernaat, D., van den Berg, M., Bijl, D. L., de Boer, H. S., … van Sluisveld, M. (2018). Alternative pathways to the 1.5°C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nature Climate Change, 8, 391–397. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaughan, N., Gough, C., Mander, S., Littleton, E., Welfle, A., Gernaat, D., & van Vuuren, D. P. (2018). Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 044014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson, P. (2016). Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530, 153–155. doi: 10.1038/530153a
   Google Scholar
• Zakkour, P., Kemper, J., & Dixon, T. (2014). Incentivising and accounting for negative emission technologies. Energy Procedia, 63, 6824–6833. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.716
   Google Scholar