The Duality of Carbon Dioxide Removal: Climate Solution and the Reproduction of Structural Inequalities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64229/p15ghb08Keywords:
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Climate Justice, Energy Justice, Structural Inequality, Political Ecology, DACCS, BECCS, Net-ZeroAbstract
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies have transitioned from a marginal concept to a central pillar of international climate mitigation scenarios, most notably those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that limit global warming to 1.5°C. While these technologies promise to counterbalance hard-to-abate emissions and potentially restore atmospheric CO₂ levels, their rapid ascendancy warrants critical social scientific scrutiny. This article argues that CDR possesses a fundamental duality: it is simultaneously a potentially indispensable climate solution and a powerful vector for the reproduction of structural inequalities. Through a systematic, interdisciplinary analysis bridging energy justice and political ecology frameworks, we deconstruct this duality. The article first provides a typology of CDR approaches, from nature-based solutions like Afforestation/Reforestation (AR) to more technologically complex methods like Direct Air Capture with Carbon Storage (DACCS) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). It then analyzes the socio-political dimensions of CDR deployment, focusing on three core axes of potential injustice: (1) the distributional inequities in the siting of projects and their localized environmental, land, and resource impacts; (2) the procedural injustices in decision-making processes that often exclude marginalized communities; and (3) the recognitional injustices that arise when CDR overlooks diverse forms of knowledge, values, and worldviews. The analysis reveals that without deliberate and transformative governance, the large-scale deployment of CDR risks reinforcing existing global and local power hierarchies, creating new "sacrifice zones," and diverting attention and resources from urgent decarbonization of energy systems. The article concludes that a just CDR pathway is not inevitable but must be actively constructed through anticipatory, participatory, and equity-centered policies that prioritize frontline communities, address root causes of inequality, and subordinate CDR to a overarching strategy of rapid emissions reduction.
References
[1]IPCC. (2018). *Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty*. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
[2]IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
[3]Luderer, G., Vrontisi, Z., Bertram, C., Edelenbosch, O. Y., Pietzcker, R. C., Rogelj, J., ... & Kriegler, E. (2018). Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 °C pathways. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6
[4]McCauley, D., & Heffron, R. (2018). Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014
[5]Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517-540. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229025
[6]McLaren, D., & Markusson, N. (2020). The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nature Climate Change, 10(5), 392-397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0740-1
[7]Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. J., & Lund, J. F. (2020). Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. WIREs Climate Change, 11(6), e671. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.671
[8]Kevin Anderson, Glen Peters ,The trouble with negative emissions.Science354,182-183(2016). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567
[9]McLaren, D. (2020). Quantifying the potential scale of mitigation deterrence from greenhouse gas removal techniques. Climatic Change, 162(4), 2411-2428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02732-3
[10]Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76-79. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848
[11]Fleischman, F., Basant, S., Chhatre, A., Coleman, E. A., Fischer, H. W., Gupta, D., ... & Veldman, J. W. (2020). Pitfalls of tree planting show why we need people-centered natural climate solutions. BioScience, 70(11), 947-950. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa094
[12]Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., ... & Duarte, C. M. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(12), 826-839. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1
[13]Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W., & Popp, A. (2018). Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nature Climate Change, 8(2), 151-155. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y
[14]Beerling, D. J., Kantzas, E. P., Lomas, M. R., Wade, P., Eufrasio, R. M., Renforth, P., ... & Banwart, S. A. (2020). Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands. Nature, 583(7815), 242-248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9
[15]Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770
[16]Talberg, A., Christoff, P., Thomas, S., & Karoly, D. (2018). Geoengineering governance-by-default: An earth system governance perspective. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(2), 229-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9374-9
[17]Kallis, G. (2011). In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics, 70(5), 873-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Chatchai Mongkolpattana, Pimpa Kengkanruea (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.