Search

Can fossil-based fuels become carbon neutral or carbon negative? The oil and gas industry is facing pressure to decarbonize, and new technologies are allowing companies and experts to imagine lower-carbon fossil fuels as part of a circular carbon economy. This paper draws on interviews with experts, ethnographic observations at carbontech and carbon management events, and interviews with members of the public along a suggested CO2 pipeline route from Iowa to Texas, to explore: What is driving the sociotechnical imaginary of circular fossil carbon among experts, and what are its prospects? How do people living in the landscapes that are expected to provide carbon utilization and removal services understand their desirability and workability? First, the paper examines a contradiction in views of carbon professionals: while experts understand the scale of infrastructure, energy, and capital required to build a circular carbon economy, they face constraints in advocating for policies commensurate with this scale, though they have developed strategies for managing this disconnect. Second, the paper describes views from the land in the central US, surfacing questions about the sustainability of new technologies, the prospect of carbon dioxide pipelines, and the way circular carbon industries could intersect trends of decline in small rural towns. Experts often fail to consider local priorities and expertise, and people in working landscapes may not see the priorities and plans of experts, constituting a "double unseeing." Robust energy democracy involves not just resistance to dominant imaginaries of circular carbon, but articulation of alternatives. New forms of expert and community collaboration will be key to transcending this double unseeing and furthering energy democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this Forum, three scholars discuss how climate engineering will pose novel human rights challenges, and may well force reconsideration of how human rights are applied as a guide to action. Following a short introduction, the first section introduces three competing approaches to human rights, arguing views which emphasize fairness or attempt to maximize satisfaction are more promising than one viewing human rights as inviolable 'side-constraints'. The second section draws lessons from climate migration that are relevant for climate engineering in terms of incorporating a human rights approach to duties, rights, and participation. The final section compares the 'needs-based' and 'rights-based' approaches to humanitarian work in the face of climate change and climate engineering, raising concerns for duty-bearers and right-holders. The Forum's conclusion draws together points of overlap and suggests a path forward for policy and research on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate engineering, or geoengineering, refers to large-scale climate interventions to lower the earth's temperature, either by blocking incoming sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the biosphere. Regarded as ‘technofixes’ by critics, these strategies have evoked concern that they would extend the shelf life of fossil-fuel driven socio-ecological systems for far longer than they otherwise would, or should, endure. A critical reading views geoengineering as a class project that is designed to keep the climate system stable enough for existing production systems to continue operating. This article first examines these concerns, and then goes on to envision a regime driven by humanitarian agendas and concern for vulnerable populations, implemented through international development and aid institutions. The motivations of those who fund research and implement geoengineering techniques are important, as the rationale for developing geoengineering strategies will determine which techniques are pursued, and hence which ecologies are produced. The logic that shapes the geoengineering research process could potentially influence social ecologies centuries from now.