Negative emissions technologies and carbon capture and storage to achieve the Paris Agreement commitments

How will the global atmosphere and climate be protected? Achieving net-zero CO2 emissions will require carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce current GHG emission rates, and negative emissions technology (NET) to recapture previously emitted greenhouse gases. Delivering NET requires radical cost and regulatory innovation to impact on climate mitigation. Present NET exemplars are few, are at small-scale and not deployable within a decade, with the exception of rock weathering, or direct injection of CO2 into selected ocean water masses. To keep warming less than 2°C, bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) has been modelled but does not yet exist at industrial scale. CCS already exists in many forms and at low cost. However, CCS has no political drivers to enforce its deployment. We make a new analysis of all global CCS projects and model the build rate out to 2050, deducing this is 100 times too slow. Our projection to 2050 captures just 700 Mt CO2 yr−1, not the minimum 6000 Mt CO2 yr−1 required to meet the 2°C target. Hence new policies are needed to incentivize commercial CCS. A first urgent action for all countries is to commercially assess their CO2 storage. A second simple action is to assign a Certificate of CO2 Storage onto producers of fossil carbon, mandating a progressively increasing proportion of CO2 to be stored. No CCS means no 2°C.This article is part of the theme issue ‘The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'

Understanding Cancer Survivors’ Reasons to Medicate With Cannabis: A Qualitative Study Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior

Background Prior to nonmedical cannabis legalization in Canada, individuals were only able to access cannabis legally through licensed producers with medical authorization. Now with an additional legal access system designed for nonmedical purposes, it is unclear what factors influence cancer survivors’ decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis as a complementary therapy to alleviate their cancer symptoms. Methods We recruited cancer survivors via social media. Interested individuals were purposively sampled to ensure maximization in terms of age, sex, and province of residence. Constructs of the Theory of Planned Behavior were explored during the telephone interviews as participants described what influenced their decisions to medicate or not medicate cannabis to manage their symptoms. Results Interviews were conducted with 33 cancer survivors. All individuals believed that cannabis would manage their cancer symptoms. Those that chose to medicate with cannabis provided a variety of reasons, including that cannabis was a more natural alternative; that it reduced their overall number of prescription drugs; and that safer products had become available with the legalization of nonmedical cannabis. Some individuals also indicated that support from physicians and validation from family and friends were important in their decision to medicate with cannabis. Individuals who opted not to medicate with cannabis raised concerns about the lack of scientific evidence and/or possible dependency issues. Some also felt their physician\u27s disapproval was a barrier to considering cannabis use. Conclusions The findings revealed that recreational legalization made using cannabis appear safer and easier to access for some cancer survivors. However, physicians’ censure of cannabis use for symptom management was a barrier for survivors considering its use

How should we set consumption thresholds for low risk drinking guidelines? Achieving objectivity and transparency using evidence, expert judgement and pragmatism

Most high-income nations issue guidelines on low-risk drinking to inform individuals' decisions about alcohol consumption. However, leading scientists have criticized the processes for setting the consumption thresholds within these guidelines for a lack of objectivity and transparency. This paper examines how guideline developers should respond to such criticisms and focuses particularly on the balance between epidemiological evidence, expert judgement and pragmatic considerations. Although concerned primarily with alcohol, our discussion is also relevant to those developing guidelines for other health-related behaviours. We make eight recommendations across three areas. First, recommendations on the use of epidemiological evidence: (1) guideline developers should assess whether the available epidemiological evidence is communicated most appropriately as population-level messages (e.g. suggesting reduced drinking benefits populations rather than individuals); (2) research funders should prioritize commissioning studies on the acceptability of different alcohol-related risks (e.g. mortality, morbidity, harms to others) to the public and other stakeholders; and (3) guideline developers should request and consider statistical analyses of epidemiological uncertainty. Secondly, recommendations to improve objectivity and transparency when translating epidemiological evidence into guidelines: (4) guideline developers should specify and publish their analytical framework to promote clear, consistent and coherent judgements; and (5) guideline developers' decision-making should be supported by numerical and visual techniques which also increase the transparency of judgements to stakeholders. Thirdly, recommendations relating to the diverse use of guidelines: (6) guideline developers and their commissioners should give meaningful attention to how guidelines are used in settings such as advocacy, health promotion, clinical practice and wider health debates, as well as in risk communication; (7) guideline developers should make evidence-based judgements that balance epidemiological and pragmatic concerns to maximize the communicability, credibility and general effectiveness of guidelines; and (8) as with scientific judgements, pragmatic judgements should be reported transparently

Evaluating Gene Drive Approaches for Public Benefit

Gene drive approaches—those which bias inheritance of a genetic element in a population of sexually reproducing organisms—have the potential to provide important public benefits. The spread of selected genetic elements in wild populations of organisms may help address certain challenges, such as transmission of vector-borne human and animal diseases and biodiversity loss due to invasive animals. Adapting various naturally occurring gene drive mechanisms to these aims is a long-standing research area, and recent advances in genetics have made engineering gene drive systems significantly more technically feasible. Gene drive approaches would act through changes in natural environments, thus robust methods to evaluate potential research and use are important. Despite the fact that gene drive approaches build on existing paradigms, such as genetic modification of organisms and conventional biological control, there are material challenges to their evaluation. One challenge is the inherent complexity of ecosystems, which makes precise prediction of changes to the environment difficult. For gene drive approaches that are expected to spread spatially and/or persist temporally, responding to this difficulty with the typical stepwise increases in the scale of studies may not be straightforward after studies begin in the natural environment. A related challenge is that study or use of a gene drive approach may have implications for communities beyond the location of introduction, depending on the spatial spread and persistence of the approach and the population biology of the target organism. This poses a particular governance challenge when spread across national borders is plausible. Finally, community engagement is an important element of responsible research and governance, but effective community engagement for gene drive approaches requires addressing complexity and uncertainty and supporting representative participation in decision making. These challenges are not confronted in a void. Existing frameworks, processes, and institutions provide a basis for effective evaluation of gene drive approaches for public benefit. Although engineered gene drive approaches are relatively new, the necessities of making decisions despite uncertainty and governing actions with potential implications for shared environments are well established. There are methodologies to identify potential harms and assess risks when there is limited experience to draw upon, and these methodologies have been applied in similar contexts. There are also laws, policies, treaties, agreements, and institutions in place across many jurisdictions that support national and international decision making regarding genetically modified organisms and the potential applications of gene drive approaches, such as public health and biodiversity conservation. Community engagement is an established component of many decision-making processes, and related experience and conceptual frameworks can inform engagement by researchers. The existence of frameworks, processes, and institutions provides an important foundation for evaluating gene drive approaches, but it is not sufficient by itself. They must be rigorously applied, which requires resources for risk assessment, research, and community engagement and diligent implementation by governance institutions. The continued evolution of the frameworks, processes, and institutions is important to adapt to the growing understanding of gene drive approaches. With appropriate resources and diligence, it will be possible to responsibly evaluate and make decisions on gene drive approaches for public benefit

Research integrity and research misconduct

Researchers should be able to rely on the integrity of their colleagues and their honesty in the description of their methodology, in recording their analysis, and in reporting their findings. Those who apply or use research outcomes must be able to trust local, national, and global research processes so that scholarship can become a cumulative exercise. And yet scientists face mounting commercial and institutional pressures to gain grants and publish, a climate in which they may be tempted to engage in unacceptable behavior. The research misconduct that ensues can be very harmful for scholarship as well as for individuals and society