The Politics of Anticipation: How the IPCC Bet on Climate Miracles

In the high-stakes race against climate change, we've been banking on technologies that don't yet exist. What happens when science fiction meets political reality?

Introduction: The Invisible Backstop

Imagine a future where giant machines suck carbon dioxide directly out of the atmosphere, reversing decades of emissions. This isn't a science fiction plot—it's a scenario that has been quietly baked into the climate models informing global policy. As the world struggles to cut emissions fast enough, Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) have emerged as the unspoken assumption in many plans to avoid climate catastrophe.

The NETs Promise

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has consistently included these future technologies in their pathways to limit global warming to 1.5-2°C. But what happens when scientific assessment collides with technological uncertainty and political complexity?

The Politics of Anticipation

This is the politics of anticipation—where future technological promises shape today's policy decisions.

The IPCC: The World's Climate Science Authority

The Architect of Climate Consensus

Established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC represents a unique endeavor in scientific diplomacy. With 195 member countries, it serves as the official body for assessing the science related to climate change 1 . Its mandate is profound: to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications, future risks, and potential responses.

Working Group I

Assesses the physical science basis of climate change

Working Group II

Examines impacts, adaptation and vulnerability

Working Group III

Focuses on mitigation options

The Assessment Process: Where Science Meets Policy

IPCC reports are drafted and reviewed in multiple stages, a process designed to guarantee objectivity and transparency 1 . The reports are intentionally policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive—they lay out options and consequences but don't tell governments what to do 1 .

IPCC Assessment Report Timeline 2023
1990
1995
2001
2007
2014
2023

The most recent Sixth Assessment Report, finalized between 2021-2023, continues this tradition but with increasing attention to carbon removal technologies 1 . As the world has fallen behind on emission reductions, these technologies have moved from peripheral interest to central assumption in many climate pathways.

Negative Emissions Technologies: The Emerging Arsenal

What Are Negative Emissions Technologies?

Negative emissions occur when more CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere than is emitted, resulting in a net decrease of atmospheric carbon 2 . NETs refer to technological approaches designed to achieve this removal and permanent sequestration of carbon dioxide 2 .

Conventional Emission Reductions

Slowing the rate of atmospheric carbon accumulation by reducing emissions at source.

Negative Emissions Technologies

Actively reversing atmospheric accumulation by removing more carbon than emitted.

The Technology Portfolio

The suite of NETs represents a diverse array of approaches with varying maturity levels and potential impacts:

Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)

This involves growing biomass, burning it for energy, capturing the emitted CO₂, and storing it permanently 2 .

Direct Air Capture (DAC)

Chemical processes that capture CO₂ directly from ambient air, after which it can be stored or utilized .

Biochar

Converting biomass into a charcoal-like substance through pyrolysis and incorporating it into soils 2 .

Enhanced Weathering

Accelerating natural geological processes where minerals react with CO₂ and convert it to stable carbonates.

Comparing Negative Emissions Technologies

Technology Carbon Removal Potential Technology Readiness Key Challenges
BECCS High Low to medium Land use competition, water consumption
Direct Air Capture Theoretical high Low Extreme energy demands, cost
Biochar Medium Medium Feedstock availability, scalability
Afforestation Medium High Land use, permanence concerns
Enhanced Weathering Theoretical high Very low Mining impacts, energy intensive

The Crucial Experiment: Scotland's NETs Feasibility Study

Methodology: Testing Real-World Deployment

While theoretical models abound, the Scottish Government's NETs Feasibility Study provides a crucial real-world experiment in anticipating technological deployment 2 . Commissioned as part of Scotland's Climate Change Plan Update, the study aimed to move beyond theoretical potential to practical pathways.

Research Approach
  • Site Identification: Examination of existing sites in Scotland that emit biogenic carbon 2
  • Pathway Modeling: Three distinct deployment pathways modeled 2
  • Policy Integration: Different levels of government action considered 2
  • Technology Assessment: Evaluation of BECCS, DAC, and biochar potential 2
Key Findings
  • Scotland's geographical advantages position it well for certain NETs
  • Technological readiness, infrastructure development, and policy support remain significant barriers 2
  • Large-scale deployment not feasible until at least the 2030s 2
  • This deployment gap represents a significant risk in climate planning

Scotland's Projected NET Deployment Timeline

2030-2035

Technologies Expected: Initial BECCS deployment, Biochar production

Key Dependencies: Scottish Cluster operational, policy support

2035-2040

Technologies Expected: Expanded BECCS, Early-stage DAC

Key Dependencies: Infrastructure expansion, cost reductions

2040-2050

Technologies Expected: Diversified NET portfolio at scale

Key Dependencies: Technological breakthroughs, sustained investment

The Environmental Trade-Offs: Life Cycle Assessment Findings

The Hidden Impacts of Carbon Removal

A comprehensive review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies reveals that NETs don't come without environmental costs 4 . While all the studied technologies can achieve net negative greenhouse gas emissions, they often create trade-offs between different environmental goals 4 .

"Biochar incorporation into soil shows the highest greenhouse gas removal potential, ranging from -1173 kg CO₂ equivalent per tonne of CO₂ removed in optimal cases, but can be as poor as a net positive impact of 1710 kg CO₂ equivalent in less ideal scenarios." 4

Resource Demands and Impact Shifting

The LCA review identified particularly high resource demands for non-biological NETs like Direct Air Capture and enhanced weathering 4 . These technologies typically require significant energy inputs that, if supplied by fossil fuels, could undermine their climate benefits.

High Fossil Resource Depletion

For manufacturing capture materials

Increased Acidification Potential

From chemical production

Elevated Human Toxicity Impacts

From mining and industrial processes 4

Environmental Trade-offs of Select NETs (per tonne CO₂ removed)

Technology Best-case GWP (kg CO₂ eq/t) Worst-case GWP (kg CO₂ eq/t) Key Impact Concerns
Biochar -1173 +1710 Feedstock sustainability, land use
Soil Carbon Sequestration -900 -100 Permanence, monitoring challenges
BECCS -800 -200 Water use, land competition
DACCS -750 -150 Energy demand, chemical use
Building with Biomass -603 -50 Sustainable forestry, transport

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential NET Research Solutions

Research Infrastructure and Methods

Advancing NETs from theoretical promise to practical reality requires specialized research infrastructure and methods:

Open Innovation Facilities

As demonstrated by TNO's research facility in the Netherlands, specialized test environments allow companies to validate inventions under realistic conditions .

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Comprehensive environmental accounting methods that evaluate the full cradle-to-grave impacts of NET systems 4 .

Land-Use and Energy System Modeling

Integrated assessment models that combine land-use requirements with energy system needs 3 .

Social Acceptance Evaluation

Methods for assessing public perception and social license to operate for different NET approaches 3 .

The Way Forward: Responsible Integration of NETs

The NEGEM project, which concluded in May 2024, emphasizes that a diverse portfolio of CDR methods is essential to respond to varying environmental and social contexts 3 . No single technology can meet the entire need, and each comes with distinct advantages and limitations.

Priority: Drastic Emission Reductions

The research clearly indicates that drastic and immediate emission reductions remain the priority, with CDR serving as a supplementary measure rather than a replacement for decarbonization 3 .

"CDR deployment should begin by the 2030s, underscoring the urgency to develop clear policies and regulations in the EU and globally." — Kati Koponen of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland 3

Conclusion: Between Promise and Prudence

The story of Negative Emissions Technologies in IPCC assessments reveals a deeper truth about how we confront planetary-scale problems. In the gap between necessary action and practical reality, we've allowed future technological promises to ease the pressure for present-day action. The politics of anticipation has enabled what might be called "predatory delay"—putting off difficult decisions by banking on solutions that don't yet exist.

The Risk

Counting on future technological miracles to solve today's problems creates dangerous complacency and delays necessary action.

The Reality

Even with aggressive emissions reductions, some level of carbon removal will likely be necessary to manage hard-to-abate emissions.

Yet abandoning NET research would be equally irresponsible. As the science shows, even with aggressive emissions reductions, some level of carbon removal will likely be necessary to manage hard-to-abate emissions and potentially reverse overshoot of climate targets 3 . The solution isn't to discard these technologies but to place them in proper perspective—as potential supplements to, not replacements for, rapid decarbonization.

The True Lesson

In facing challenges of unprecedented scale, we need both ambitious technological innovation and humble recognition of limitations.

As we move forward, our anticipations must be grounded not in what we hope technology might someday do, but in what we know we can accomplish today, with the tools we have now, while responsibly developing the tools we may need tomorrow.


The politics of anticipation continues to shape our climate future. The technologies that remain in laboratories today may determine the atmosphere of tomorrow—but only if we match technological optimism with pragmatic action.

References