Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Limiting dangerous climate change is now widely believed to require negative emissions (NETs), a prospect some believe to be unjust and unacceptably risky. While NETs are not risk-free, I argue that they could be part of minimally just responses to climate change. In doing so, I identify a dilemma between limiting warming to 1.5 ° C, which promises lower climate impacts but implies greater NETs risks, and 2°C, which requires less NETs but promises greater climate impacts. Finally, I consider what the case of NETs reveals about permissibility in the face of non-compliance with principles of climate justice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dominic Lenzi (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: