Net zero goals can hide as much as they reveal. In a survey of 300 experts, we found the overwhelming majority favour a more transparent approach Carbon Engineering's direct air capture pilot project in Canada (Photo: Pembina Institute/Flickr) The problems with net zero targets have been vigorously debated of late. While some welcome such targets as signs of increasing climate ambition, others argue that they hide as much as they reveal. The main concern is that such targets might rely on unfeasibly high levels of carbon removal from the air, giving an excuse to delay or avoid cutting emissions. In a survey of 300 experts, we found the overwhelming majority favour separating emission reduction and carbon removal targets to improve transparency around these goals. Large-scale carbon dioxide removal is a key component of most climate change mitigation pathways that limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C . Research on the technologies and governance of such “negative emissions” is mushrooming, along with corporate interest and investments. Climate policy attention however remains limited, and public awareness levels are low. This makes the opinions of “experts” on carbon removal relevant, since they have the most knowledge on carbon removal and also shape the public debate and opinion on the topic. Already, a controversy has gained traction: the risk that carbon removal might lead to reduced or delayed mitigation – what some academics call mitigation deterrence. In essence, anticipating future large-scale removals allows for more gradual decarbonization and thereby reduces pressure on near-term emission reduction action. If removals ultimately prove less efficient or feasible than anticipated, this could lead to overall less mitigation. To understand experts’ expectations about the roles of carbon removal in mitigation and the risk of mitigation deterrence, we conducted a survey of 300 experts. Our sample reflects the... |