Search results

How do radical movements seeking fundamental social change engage with nearer-term policy dilemmas? Disciplinary boundaries and practical obstacles have limited research into protester policy engagement. Using a hybrid method combining participant-observation and expert-led focus groups, we document activist attitudes concerning controversial climate policy options. Data gathered at 'Climate Camps' in six national contexts are presented alongside evidence from similar 'participant-instigator' events at Green Party conferences. We find activists engaged in direct action outside the established political system had policy knowledge and agendas comparable to or surpassing those active within the system. Support for radical change appears correlated with – rather than opposed to – knowledge and interest in policy agendas. As climate protests escalate it is important to understand 'protester policy engagement' – the processing, production and communication of changes proposed from a position outside the established political system and to theorise this with, rather than in contradistinction to, social movement identity.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs), especially bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air capture and storage, have been invoked as necessary to achieve the aspirational 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. However, currently their costs are estimated to be very high, NETs do not seem to offer co-benefits besides mitigating climate change and there are significant concerns regarding possible negative impacts of their large-scale implementation on sustainable development. Costs can vary significantly due to locational factors such as availability of biomass resources and geological storage capacity. It will be up to progressive industrialized countries to take first steps to mobilize the mitigation potential of NETs. In order to understand whether NETs can provide a significant contribution to mitigation, financial incentives are needed that allow implementing the most attractive NET activities at the global scale. We see the market mechanism under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement – colloquially called 'Sustainable Development Mechanism' – as a possible cornerstone of such a policy instrument. While initially NETs will not be competitive on the free market, the mechanism can facilitate bilateral financial transfers for NETs, where mitigation units accrue to the financier. We discuss the functions and design elements that an international policy instrument may need to fulfil to successfully mobilize NETs. This includes in particular robust quantification of removed carbon under international oversight and preventing social and environmental conflicts particularly on land and water use by NETs to ensure long-term acceptability.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) raises many cultural, ethical, legal, social, and political issues, yet in the growing area of GGR research, humanities and social sciences (HASS) research is often marginalized, constrained and depoliticised. This global dynamic is illustrated by an analysis of the UK GGR research programme. This dynamic matters for the knowledge produced and for its users. Without HASS contributions, too narrow a range of perspectives, futures and issues will be considered, undermining or overpromising the prospects for the responsible development of GGR (and threatening worse side-effects), and limiting our understanding of why and how policy demands GGR solutions in the first place. In response, we present policy principles for bringing HASS fully into GGR research, organized around three themes: (1) HASS-led GGR research, (2) Opening up GGR futures, and (3) The politics of GGR futures.