Investigating the socio-political acceptance of negative emission technologies: A group model building approach

• Published in: Sustainable production and consumption 2024-06, Vol.47, p.670-681
• Main Authors: Gaspers, Anne, Vasconcellos Oliveira, Rita, Oftebro, Thea Lurås, Palmer, Erika
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Group model building; Negative emission technologies; Policymaking; Socio-political acceptance; Sustainability transitions
• ISSN: 2352-5509; 2352-5509
• DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.028

Reaching climate targets can require sustainability transition strategies that include negative emissions technologies, hence, there is a current need for more social science research on these technologies. In this study, we focus on four negative emissions technologies: (1) converting algae and/or waste bioresources into power, heat, and/or hydrogen with CCS (bioCCS), (2) the removal of CO2 from water (direct ocean capture), (3) the removal of CO2 from air (direct air capture), and, lastly, (4) the removal of CH4 from air. Through group model building (GMB) workshops, we examine stakeholder perspectives on reaching negative emissions by 2040 in Norway and the barriers and thresholds for socio-political acceptance of the four technologies. Stakeholders highlighted that to reduce emissions to negative emissions by 2040 in Norway, policymakers should ensure better science-based policies, laws, incentives, and regulations. These science-based policies, laws, incentives, and regulations, referred to as ‘framework conditions’ by the stakeholders, can help industrial and political leaders to feel secure in their decision making. For socio-political acceptance, policymakers should ensure framework conditions that facilitate the availability and management of resources, mostly energy. Policymakers should take heed to the fact that despite technological differences, timeframes for implementation, physical requirements for implementation, and technological readiness levels, the main exogenous variables driving socio-political acceptance are largely similar across the four technologies, potentially facilitating the political process of implementing them simultaneously or separately. Methane removal from air, however, could lack socio-political acceptance due to being sometimes seen as a mitigation technology rather than a removal technology. Overall, these results are a good starting point for a discussion on concrete policymaking actions for the development and potential large scale technological deployment of negative emission technologies.