Assessing the Social Implications of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies and Smart Infrastructure Deployment

Authors

  • Budi Santoso Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Kabupaten Sleman, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64229/q62r5j82

Keywords:

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Smart Infrastructure, Social Impact, Energy Justice, Technological Transition, Data Privacy

Abstract

The global energy system is undergoing a profound transformation to meet the ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement. This transition increasingly relies not only on conventional mitigation but also on two critical frontiers: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies and smart infrastructure. However, current research and policy discussions are predominantly focused on technical feasibility and economic costs, with a significant gap in assessing their wide-ranging and complex social implications. This paper aims to fill this gap by employing an interdisciplinary analytical framework to systematically evaluate the social impacts of deploying CDR technologies (such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage, Direct Air Capture, and Enhanced Weathering) and smart infrastructure (including smart grids, smart city platforms, and intelligent transport systems). The article argues that while both technological suites are crucial for climate mitigation, they risk triggering or exacerbating a suite of social challenges, including land and resource competition, energy justice concerns, community rights, data privacy, labour market disruptions, and new governance demands. We posit that a successful energy transition is not merely a technical or economic process but a profound societal restructuring. Therefore, social considerations must be placed at the core of technology deployment and policy design. Through anticipatory governance, inclusive decision-making, and robust regulatory frameworks, the transition can be steered towards a more just, equitable, and resilient future. The paper concludes with a synthesized framework of policy recommendations to align climate action with social sustainability objectives.

References

[1]IEA. (2023). Digitalisation and Energy. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/reports/digitalisation-and-energy

[2]Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354(6309), 182-183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567

[3]Sovacool, B. K., & Del Rio, D. F. (2020). Smart home technologies in Europe: A critical review of concepts, benefits, risks and policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 120, 109663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109663

[4]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

[5]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

[6]McLaren, D. (2020). Quantifying the potential scale of mitigation deterrence from greenhouse gas removal techniques. Climatic Change, 162(2), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02732-3

[7]World Bank. (2020). World Development Report 2020: Trading for Development in the Age of Global Value Chains. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1457-0

[8]Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. B. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275

[9]Hilty, L. M., & Aebischer, B. (Eds.). (2015). ICT innovations for sustainability. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7

[10]Boettcher, M., Brent, K., Buck, H. J., Low, S., McLaren, D., & Mengis, N. (2021). Navigating potential hype and opportunity in governing marine carbon removal. Frontiers in Climate, 3, 664456. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.664456

[11]Cox, E., & Edwards, N. R. (2019). Beyond carbon pricing: Policy levers for negative emissions technologies. Climate Policy, 19(9), 1144-1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1634509

[12]Bellamy, R. (2018). Incentivize negative emissions responsibly. Nature Energy, 3(7), 532-534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0156-6

[13]Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., ... & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions-Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6), 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

[14]Sadowski, J., & Pasquale, F. A. (2015). The spectrum of control: A social theory of the smart city. First Monday, 20(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i7.5903

[15]Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019

[16]Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: A conceptual review. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004

Downloads

Published

2025-12-01

Issue

Section

Articles