Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Little big

Research

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal. / Markusson, Nils.
In: Climatic Change, Vol. 178, No. 7, 132, 31.07.2025.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Markusson, N 2025, 'Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal', Climatic Change, vol. 178, no. 7, 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7

APA

Markusson, N. (2025). Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal. Climatic Change, 178(7), Article 132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7

Vancouver

Markusson N. Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal. Climatic Change. 2025 Jul 31;178(7):132. Epub 2025 Jun 27. doi: 10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7

Author

Markusson, Nils. / Little big : sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal. In: Climatic Change. 2025 ; Vol. 178, No. 7.

Bibtex

@article{750d72b6eb40474f972801a553644662,
title = "Little big: sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal",
abstract = "The risk that overall mitigation efforts will be deterred by the pursuit of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is real. Some awareness about this risk among climate policy stakeholders appears to be widespread, but it is not clear that the risk is being taken very seriously. This essay identifies arguments for thinking that mitigation deterrence from CDR is not a big risk. These arguments revolve around removal being too small a thing to deter anything, and that other things are worse for deterring overall mitigation efforts. The essay presents counterarguments, facilitated by a shift of the perspective on technologies from being physical, stand-alone, apolitical things, to one where technologies also have discursive effects, are part of the wider phenomenon of technology in general, and are entangled with politics. The essay aims to strengthen the concern about mitigation deterrence from CDR, and so help justify efforts to pre-empt it.",
author = "Nils Markusson",
year = "2025",
month = jul,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7",
language = "English",
volume = "178",
journal = "Climatic Change",
issn = "0165-0009",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Little big

T2 - sizing up the risk of mitigation deterrence from carbon removal

AU - Markusson, Nils

PY - 2025/7/31

Y1 - 2025/7/31

N2 - The risk that overall mitigation efforts will be deterred by the pursuit of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is real. Some awareness about this risk among climate policy stakeholders appears to be widespread, but it is not clear that the risk is being taken very seriously. This essay identifies arguments for thinking that mitigation deterrence from CDR is not a big risk. These arguments revolve around removal being too small a thing to deter anything, and that other things are worse for deterring overall mitigation efforts. The essay presents counterarguments, facilitated by a shift of the perspective on technologies from being physical, stand-alone, apolitical things, to one where technologies also have discursive effects, are part of the wider phenomenon of technology in general, and are entangled with politics. The essay aims to strengthen the concern about mitigation deterrence from CDR, and so help justify efforts to pre-empt it.

AB - The risk that overall mitigation efforts will be deterred by the pursuit of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is real. Some awareness about this risk among climate policy stakeholders appears to be widespread, but it is not clear that the risk is being taken very seriously. This essay identifies arguments for thinking that mitigation deterrence from CDR is not a big risk. These arguments revolve around removal being too small a thing to deter anything, and that other things are worse for deterring overall mitigation efforts. The essay presents counterarguments, facilitated by a shift of the perspective on technologies from being physical, stand-alone, apolitical things, to one where technologies also have discursive effects, are part of the wider phenomenon of technology in general, and are entangled with politics. The essay aims to strengthen the concern about mitigation deterrence from CDR, and so help justify efforts to pre-empt it.

U2 - 10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7

DO - 10.1007/s10584-025-03984-7

M3 - Journal article

VL - 178

JO - Climatic Change

JF - Climatic Change

SN - 0165-0009

IS - 7

M1 - 132

ER -