Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling
We assess the literature on innovation and upscaling for negative emissions technologies (NETs) using a systematic and reproducible literature coding procedure. To structure our review, we employ the framework of sequential stages in the innovation process, with which we code each NETs article in in...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
IOP Publishing
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Environmental Research Letters |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4 |
| _version_ | 1797748182996746240 |
|---|---|
| author | Gregory F Nemet Max W Callaghan Felix Creutzig Sabine Fuss Jens Hartmann Jérôme Hilaire William F Lamb Jan C Minx Sophia Rogers Pete Smith |
| author_facet | Gregory F Nemet Max W Callaghan Felix Creutzig Sabine Fuss Jens Hartmann Jérôme Hilaire William F Lamb Jan C Minx Sophia Rogers Pete Smith |
| author_sort | Gregory F Nemet |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | We assess the literature on innovation and upscaling for negative emissions technologies (NETs) using a systematic and reproducible literature coding procedure. To structure our review, we employ the framework of sequential stages in the innovation process, with which we code each NETs article in innovation space. We find that while there is a growing body of innovation literature on NETs, 59% of the articles are focused on the earliest stages of the innovation process, ‘research and development’ (R&D). The subsequent stages of innovation are also represented in the literature, but at much lower levels of activity than R&D. Distinguishing between innovation stages that are related to the supply of the technology (R&D, demonstrations, scale up) and demand for the technology (demand pull, niche markets, public acceptance), we find an overwhelming emphasis (83%) on the supply side. BECCS articles have an above average share of demand-side articles while direct air carbon capture and storage has a very low share. Innovation in NETs has much to learn from successfully diffused technologies; appealing to heterogeneous users, managing policy risk, as well as understanding and addressing public concerns are all crucial yet not well represented in the extant literature. Results from integrated assessment models show that while NETs play a key role in the second half of the 21st century for 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios, the major period of new NETs deployment is between 2030 and 2050. Given that the broader innovation literature consistently finds long time periods involved in scaling up and deploying novel technologies, there is an urgency to developing NETs that is largely unappreciated. This challenge is exacerbated by the thousands to millions of actors that potentially need to adopt these technologies for them to achieve planetary scale. This urgency is reflected neither in the Paris Agreement nor in most of the literature we review here. If NETs are to be deployed at the levels required to meet 1.5 °C and 2 °C targets, then important post-R&D issues will need to be addressed in the literature, including incentives for early deployment, niche markets, scale-up, demand, and—particularly if deployment is to be hastened—public acceptance. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:02:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-053b89968ed34c009b2cd926d3c50586 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1748-9326 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T16:02:14Z |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | IOP Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Environmental Research Letters |
| spelling | doaj.art-053b89968ed34c009b2cd926d3c505862023-08-09T14:34:35ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262018-01-0113606300310.1088/1748-9326/aabff4Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscalingGregory F Nemet0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7859-4580Max W Callaghan1Felix Creutzig2Sabine Fuss3https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8681-9839Jens Hartmann4https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1878-9321Jérôme Hilaire5William F Lamb6https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3273-7878Jan C Minx7https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2862-0178Sophia Rogers8Pete Smith9https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124La Follette School of Public Affairs , University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States of America; Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, GermanyMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, Germany; Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, GermanyMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, GermanyInstitute for Geology, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN) , Universität Hamburg, Bundesstraße 55, 20146 Hamburg, GermanyMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, Germany; Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research , D-14473 Potsdam, GermanyMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, GermanyMercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change , Torgauer Straße 12–15, EUREF Campus #19, 10829 Berlin, Germany; School of Earth and Environment , University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United KingdomLa Follette School of Public Affairs , University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706, United States of AmericaInstitute of Biological and Environmental Sciences School of Biological Sciences , University of Aberdeen, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, Scotland, United KingdomWe assess the literature on innovation and upscaling for negative emissions technologies (NETs) using a systematic and reproducible literature coding procedure. To structure our review, we employ the framework of sequential stages in the innovation process, with which we code each NETs article in innovation space. We find that while there is a growing body of innovation literature on NETs, 59% of the articles are focused on the earliest stages of the innovation process, ‘research and development’ (R&D). The subsequent stages of innovation are also represented in the literature, but at much lower levels of activity than R&D. Distinguishing between innovation stages that are related to the supply of the technology (R&D, demonstrations, scale up) and demand for the technology (demand pull, niche markets, public acceptance), we find an overwhelming emphasis (83%) on the supply side. BECCS articles have an above average share of demand-side articles while direct air carbon capture and storage has a very low share. Innovation in NETs has much to learn from successfully diffused technologies; appealing to heterogeneous users, managing policy risk, as well as understanding and addressing public concerns are all crucial yet not well represented in the extant literature. Results from integrated assessment models show that while NETs play a key role in the second half of the 21st century for 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios, the major period of new NETs deployment is between 2030 and 2050. Given that the broader innovation literature consistently finds long time periods involved in scaling up and deploying novel technologies, there is an urgency to developing NETs that is largely unappreciated. This challenge is exacerbated by the thousands to millions of actors that potentially need to adopt these technologies for them to achieve planetary scale. This urgency is reflected neither in the Paris Agreement nor in most of the literature we review here. If NETs are to be deployed at the levels required to meet 1.5 °C and 2 °C targets, then important post-R&D issues will need to be addressed in the literature, including incentives for early deployment, niche markets, scale-up, demand, and—particularly if deployment is to be hastened—public acceptance.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4negative emissionsParis agreementcarbon removalgeo-engineering |
| spellingShingle | Gregory F Nemet Max W Callaghan Felix Creutzig Sabine Fuss Jens Hartmann Jérôme Hilaire William F Lamb Jan C Minx Sophia Rogers Pete Smith Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling Environmental Research Letters negative emissions Paris agreement carbon removal geo-engineering |
| title | Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling |
| title_full | Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling |
| title_fullStr | Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling |
| title_full_unstemmed | Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling |
| title_short | Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling |
| title_sort | negative emissions part 3 innovation and upscaling |
| topic | negative emissions Paris agreement carbon removal geo-engineering |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabff4 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gregoryfnemet negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT maxwcallaghan negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT felixcreutzig negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT sabinefuss negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT jenshartmann negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT jeromehilaire negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT williamflamb negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT jancminx negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT sophiarogers negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling AT petesmith negativeemissionspart3innovationandupscaling |