Climatic Change

, Volume 139, Issue 2, pp 155–167 | Cite as

Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications

  • Holly Jean BuckEmail author


Negative emissions technologies have garnered increasing attention in the wake of the Paris target to curb global warming to 1.5 °C. However, much of the literature on carbon dioxide removal focuses on technical feasibility, and several significant social barriers to scale-up of these technologies have been glossed over. This paper reviews the existing literature on the social implications of rapidly ramping up carbon dioxide removal. It also explores the applicability of previous empirical social science research on intersecting topics, with examples drawn from research on first- and second-generation biofuels and forest carbon projects. Social science fieldwork and case studies of land use change, agricultural and energy system change, and technology adoption and diffusion can help in both anticipating the social implications of emerging negative emissions technologies and understanding the factors that shape trajectories of technological development. By integrating empirical research on public and producer perceptions, barriers to adoption, conditions driving new technologies, and social impacts, projections about negative emissions technologies can become more realistic and more useful to climate change policymaking.


Carbon dioxide removal Negative emissions Food systems Direct air capture BECCS 



Many thanks to the reviewers, to former colleagues at the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam for critical discussions, to the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment at American University, and to Charles Geisler.


  1. Anderson K (2015) Duality in climate science. Nat Geosci 8:898–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bäckstrand K et al. (2011) The politics and policy of carbon capture and storage: Framing an emergent technology. Glob Environ Chang. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.008 Google Scholar
  3. Bauer N (2015) Power systems: carbon negative at the regional level. Nat Clim Chang 5(3):196–197Google Scholar
  4. Brunner A, Currie WS, Miller S (2015) Cellulosic ethanol production: landscape scale net carbon strongly affected by forest decision making. Biomass Bioenergy 83:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldas M et al. (2014) Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to grow alternative biofuel feedstocks across Kansas. Biomass Bioenergy 66:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caplow S et al. (2011) Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ Sci Pol 14:152–167. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corry O (2014) Climate engineering and the contraption fallacy. Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment,, accessed 3 May 2016.
  8. Cotula L, Dyer N, Vermeulen S (2008) Fuelling exclusion? The biofuels boom and poor people’s access to land. IIED, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Creutzig F et al. (2013) Integrating place-specific livelihood and equity outcomes into global assessments of bioenergy deployment. Environ Res Lett. doi: 10.1088/1748–9326/8/3/035047 Google Scholar
  10. Creutzig F et al. (2015) Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. GCB Bioenergy. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12205 Google Scholar
  11. De Coninck H, Benson S (2014) Carbon dioxide capture and storage: issues and prospects. Annu Rev Environ Resour 39:243–270. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-032112-095222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dowd A, Rodriguez M, Jeanneret T (2015) Social science insights for the bioCCS industry. Energy 8:4024–4042. doi: 10.3390/en8054024 Google Scholar
  13. Fuss S et al. (2014) Betting on negative emissions . Nature. Clim Chang 4:850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallagher E (2008) The Gallagher review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. Renewable Fuels Agency, July 2008,
  15. Gasser T et al. (2015) Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nat Commun. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8958 Google Scholar
  16. Geden O (2015) Climate advisers must maintain integrity. Nature 521:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. German L, Schoneveld GC, Pacheco P (2011) Local social and environmental impacts of biofuels: global comparative assessment and implications for governance. Ecol Soc 16(4): 29.Google Scholar
  18. Hartmann J et al. (2013) Enhanced chemical weathering as a geoengineering strategy to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, supply nutrients, and mitigate ocean acidification. Rev. Geophysics 51:113–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hulme M (2016) 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris agreement. Nature. Clim Chang 6:222–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunsberger C, et al (2015). Land-based climate change mitigation, land grabbing and conflict: understanding intersections and linkages, exploring actions for change. MOSAIC Working Paper Series No. 1.Google Scholar
  21. IPCC (2014) : Summary for Policymakers. In: Edenhofer O et al. (eds) In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,, Cambridge, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  22. Iyer G et al. (2015) Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. Technolo Forecast Sol Chang. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025 Google Scholar
  23. Kuchler M (2014) Sweet dreams (are made of cellulose): sociotechnical imaginaries of second-generation bioenergy in the global debate. Ecol Econ 107:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leach M, Fairhead J, Fraser J (2012) Green grabs and biochar: revaluing African soils and farming in the new carbon economy, J Peasant Stud, 39, (2):285–307Google Scholar
  25. Lomax G et al. (2015a) Investing in negative emissions. Nat Clim Chang 5:498–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lomax G et al. (2015b) Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies. Energ Policy 78:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Longstaff H et al. (2015) Fostering citizen deliberations on the social acceptability of renewable fuels policy: the case of advanced lignocellulosic biofuels in Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 74:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lyons K, Westoby P (2014) Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts. J Rural Stud 36:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markusson N, Shackley S, Evar B (2012a) The social dynamics of carbon capture and storage: understanding CCS representations, governance, and innovation. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Markusson N et al. (2012b) A socio-technical framework for assessing the viability of carbon capture and storage technology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:903–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLaren D (2014) Capturing the Imagination: Prospects for Direct Air Capture as a Climate Measure. Forthcoming in Geoengineering our Climate: Ethics, Policy, and GovernanceGoogle Scholar
  32. Meadowcroft J (2013) Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584–012–0684-1 Google Scholar
  33. Moosdorf N, Renforth P, Hartmann J (2014) Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial enhanced weathering. Environ Sci Technol 48:4809–4816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nalepa R, Bauer DM (2012) Marginal lands: the role of remote sensing in constructing landscapes for agrofuel development. J Peasant Stud 39(2):403–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. National Academies of Science (2015) Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi: 10.17226/18805
  36. Niemark B, Mahanty S, Dressler W (2016) Mapping value in a ‘green’ commodity frontier: revisiting commodity chain analysis. Dev Chang 47(2):240–265. doi: 10.1111/dech.12226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Peters G (2016) The ‘best available science’ to inform 1.5 °C policy choices. Nat Clim Change. Google Scholar
  38. Rai V, Victor D, Thurber M (2010) Carbon capture and storage at scale: lessons from the growth of analogous energy technologies. Energ Policy 38:4089–4098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Raman S et al. (2015) Integrating social and value dimensions into sustainability assessment of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biomass Bioenergy 82:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ribiero R, Quintanilla M (2015) Transitions in biofuel technologies: An appraisal of the social impacts of cellulosic ethanol using the Delphi method. Technoll Forecast Soc Chang 92(2015):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Riera O, Swinnen J (2016) Household level spillover effects from biofuels: evidence from castor in Ethiopia. Food Policy 59:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogelj J et al. (2016) Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled. Nat Clim Chang. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2868 Google Scholar
  43. Rollins CL, Boxall PC, Luckert MK (2015) Public preferences for planting genetically improved poplars on public land for biofuel production in western Canada. Can J For Res 45:1785–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sanchez DL et al. (2015) Emissions accounting for biomass energy with CCS . Nature. Clim Chang 5:230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schirmer J, Bull L (2014) Assessing the likelihood of widespread landholder adoption of afforestation and reforestation projects. Glob Environ Chang. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.009 Google Scholar
  46. Shackley S, Thompson M (2012) Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables? Clim Chang 110:101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shete M, Rutten M (2014) Biofuel feedstock production in Ethiopia: Status, challenges and contributions. In: Akinyoade A et al. (eds) In Digging Deeper: Inside Africa’s Agricultural, Food and Nutrition Dynamics. Leiden, Brill.Google Scholar
  48. Smith LJ, Torn MS (2013) Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Clim Chang 118(1):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith P et al. (2015) Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat Clim Chang. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2870 Google Scholar
  50. Suiseeya K, Caplow S (2013) pursuit of procedural justice: Lessons from an analysis of 56 forest carbon project designs. Glob Environ Chang 23:968–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sunderlin W et al. (2013) How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Dev 55:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Swallow B, Goddard TW (2013) Value chains for bio-carbon sequestration services: lessons from contrasting cases in Canada, Kenya and Mozambique. Land Use Policy 31:81–89. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tavoni M, Socolow R (2013) Modeling meets science and technology: an introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Clim Chang 118:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0757-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor L et al. (2016) Enhanced weathering strategies for stabilizing climate and averting ocean acidification. Nat Clim Chang. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2882 Google Scholar
  55. Unruh J (2011) Tree-Based Carbon Storage in Developing Countries: Neglect of the Social Sciences. Soc Nat Res Int J 24(2):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van der Horst D, Vermeylen S (2011) Spatial scale and social impacts of biofuel production. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2435e2443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vaughan N and Gough C (2015) Synthesizing existing knowledge on feasibility of BECCS: Workshop report.Google Scholar
  58. Vergragt P, Markusson N, Karlsson H (2011) Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in. Glob Environ Chang 21:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Williamson P (2016) Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature 530:153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wylie L, Sutton-Grier A, Moore A (2016) Keys to successful blue carbon projects: lessons learned from global case studies. Mar Policy 65:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Development SociologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations