Insights lost at points of vulnerability in UK policy evidence gathering on carbon dioxide removal

Hope, Aimie and Vaughan, Naomi E. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4532-2084 (2026) Insights lost at points of vulnerability in UK policy evidence gathering on carbon dioxide removal. Environmental Science & Policy, 181. ISSN 1462-9011

Preview

PDF (1-s2.0-S1462901126001085-main) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (594kB) | Preview

Abstract

The methods, quantity, and timing of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is impacted by, and has implications for, decarbonising energy, land use change, agriculture, the earth system response, and global society. Uncertainties in each plus the rapid development of CDR methods and policy, make decision-making challenging. Insights from the social sciences and humanities are underrepresented in CDR decision-making. Qualitative evidence and theoretical insights are challenging to synthesise with quantitative policy outputs and decision tools. Real-world complexities may therefore be missed from feasibility assessments and decision-making around CDR, with consequent risks to delivery. We focus on expert consultation procedures to identify points where real-world insights may be lost. The focus is non-statutory consultations with significant two-way dialogue and multiple stakeholders. Non-statutory processes are less scrutinised and more fluid, with greater scope for the quality of evidence to be impacted by institutional and human biases. Twenty-six semi-structured online interviews were conducted with individuals from NGOs, policy, industry, and academia who work on CDR and related areas. Interviews capture both inside (i.e., policymaker/panel convenor) and outside (i.e., stakeholder/expert) perspectives on evidence gathering procedures. Interviews provide insights into the contexts in which evidence is gathered, which procedures are working well and where changes may promote more robust evidence gathering. We identify points at which insights are lost: (1) expert selection (as this determines the types of evidence heard), (2) during panel sessions (e.g., if some voices are silent or marginalised), and (3) evidence synthesis (e.g., if insights do not fit easily into the intended output).

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	sdg 15 - life on land ,/dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/life_on_land
Faculty \ School:	University of East Anglia Research Groups/Centres > Theme - ClimateUEA Faculty of Science > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research University of East Anglia Research Groups/Centres > Faculty of Science > Research Centres > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Faculty of Science > School of Environmental Sciences
UEA Research Groups:	Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Centre for Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	16 Jul 2026 13:08
Last Modified:	16 Jul 2026 13:08
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/103897
DOI:	10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104412

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item