Carbon dioxide removal and mitigation deterrence in EU climate policy: Towards a research approach.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are rapidly evolving from renderings in climate models towards an explicit and essential component of climate policy-making. This has raised concerns that the expectations of future large-scale availability of CDR technologies may deter mitigation, i.e., delay or substitute emission reduction efforts. Here, we develop a conceptual approach to systematically study such mitigation deterrence effects in climate policy-making processes. The approach integrates literature on sociotechnical imaginaries and the cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence with historical-materialist policy analysis. It follows within-case process tracing to uncover whether and how expectations of CDR technologies either weaken 'conventional' mitigation targets in policy formulation or encourage policy designs which treat 'conventional' mitigation and CDR as equivalent. Using critical instances of contestation in the policy process, this approach also allows us to identify nascent constellations of actors and interests as well as emerging fault lines related to CDR technologies. Empirically, the paper focusses on the EU Sustainable Carbon Cycles Strategy and the current negotiations over an EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework. We show that even though it is too early to pin-point clear-cut instances of mitigation deterrence related to CDR technologies in EU climate policy-making, critical opportunities to prevent such effects have already been missed in both climate target formulation and policy design. • Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are currently being integrated into EU climate policy. • This poses the risks of mitigation deterrence, i.e., reduced emission reduction efforts. • We developed a conceptual approach to systematically trace mitigation deterrence in climate policy-making. • Opportunities to forestall mitigation deterrence have already been missed in critical EU climate policy initiatives. • Separating targets and specifying the use of carbon removal credits could contribute to prevent mitigation deterrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]