In a recently published article, ‘Who Cares about Carbon Dioxide Removal? Assessing Actors, Policy Positions and Participation Modes within European and United Nations Public Consultation Processes’, three researchers from Aarhus University, Lucilla Losi, Livia Fritz and Benjamin K. Sovacool, have examined the public consultation processes that have been organized in 2023 under the auspices of the EU and UNFCCC to map the various kinds of stakeholders that take part in such processes as well as their viewpoints regarding matters pertaining to the regulation and implementation of CDR technologies.
Key takeaways from the article:
- Public consultation processes are biased in favor of the private entities located in the Global North that engage in CDR to earn profits by carrying out farming activities.
- The stakeholders located in North America and Central Europe enjoy excessive representation in the public consultation processes, a situation that reflects the composition of decision-makers in other matters pertaining to climate change.
- Information regarding public policy consultations usually remains among professionals that are located in the Global North and stakeholders located in the Global South lack access to ‘resources and capacities’ to take part in deliberative processes.
- Future research should study the knowledge networks that are concentrated in the Global North and the manner in which information is distributed given that ‘providing the resources and building capacities needed for sustainable development are fundamental to granting equal access to policy spaces for actors in the Global South.’
- Deliberate efforts should be made to ensure that multiple stakeholders are included in consultation processes that fully respect the principles of ‘transparency and accountability.’
- While private actors mostly adopt a laissez-faire approach towards CDR due to having economic incentives, non-governmental actors tend to advocate for the imposition of limitations on CDR activities in view of the risk that they may impose adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the creation of policies that can achieve a trade-off between economic and environmental goals is of crucial importance.
- Corporations that are the proponents of the laissez-faire approach that engage in farming are of the view that gases removed apart from CO2 should also fall within the scope of removal activities and other private sector actors support the imposition of ‘permanence requirements’ to a broader set of technologies.
- Environmental NGOs tend to highlight the ‘risk of mitigation deterrence’ and stress that the emergence of negative environmental consequences from the CDR technologies should be averted through strict regulation.
- Due to the predominance of Global North actors in CDR policy-making space, the laissez-faire approach towards CDR outweighs stances that support the imposition of limitations.
- Deliberate steps should be taken to ensure that stakeholders that have traditionally been excluded from processes that lead up to the enactment of policies are consulted before CDR-specific regulations are passed.
- There is a significant connection between ‘CDR and agriculture and farming practices’, with this link strengthening for ‘biochar and soil carbon sequestration.’ This situation has been demonstrated by the fact that stakeholders operating in the agriculture sector enjoy prevalent representation in the EU. This result supports the outcomes that have been obtained from the research activities that have been carried out in the past whereby agricultural lobbies play an important role in shaping policy-making at the EU level.
To read the article, visit https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2025.2485204#d1e723