Separated targets are not enough : How spatiotemporal fixes and policy corridors embedded mitigation deterrence in Swedish net-zero politics
Allesson, Jonas LU
(2026)
In Environmental Science and Policy
182.
- Abstract
- Researchers and civil society have proposed separating targets for emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal to prevent mitigation deterrence – the risk that the anticipation of future removals delays decarbonisation. In 2017, Sweden became the first state to adopt separated targets, specifying that its 2045 net-zero target must be reached through a minimum of 85% domestic emissions reductions, with the remaining 15% achievable through carbon removal. I reconstruct the policy process that resulted in the separated net-zero framework using Historical Materialist Policy Analysis based on interviews with seventeen policymakers, stakeholders and experts involved. My analysis shows that state knowledge apparatuses, especially climate... (More)
- Researchers and civil society have proposed separating targets for emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal to prevent mitigation deterrence – the risk that the anticipation of future removals delays decarbonisation. In 2017, Sweden became the first state to adopt separated targets, specifying that its 2045 net-zero target must be reached through a minimum of 85% domestic emissions reductions, with the remaining 15% achievable through carbon removal. I reconstruct the policy process that resulted in the separated net-zero framework using Historical Materialist Policy Analysis based on interviews with seventeen policymakers, stakeholders and experts involved. My analysis shows that state knowledge apparatuses, especially climate scenarios, pre-structured a policy corridor that made carbon removal appear technically unavoidable rather than a political choice. The separation of targets was not a safeguard against mitigation deterrence; some actors viewed the quantification of a removals target as a potential license to delay. Moreover, the separation worked as a spatio-temporal fix which displaced conflicts between actors advocating rapid decarbonisation and a coalition seeking to protect the competitiveness of Swedish industry. The 15% removals target was a concession necessary to reach agreement on the 2045 net-zero date, a leftover of the compromise on 85% reductions rather than any assessment of sustainable removal potentials or what would be a socially necessary or globally just level of residual emissions. The Swedish case shows that without such reflexive assessment, and awareness of the prescriptive influence of climate scenarios, even separated targets can embed mitigation deterrence into climate policy. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/62a222c2-8c8c-410b-966d-375747d182b3
- author
- Allesson, Jonas
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2026-07-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- epub
- subject
- keywords
- Carbon Dioxide Removal, Climate Policy, HMPA, Separated Targets, Carbon Removal, Sweden
- in
- Environmental Science and Policy
- volume
- 182
- article number
- 104435
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:105043448285
- ISSN
- 1462-9011
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104435
- project
- Burying problems? Imaginaries of carbon capture and storage in Scandinavia
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 62a222c2-8c8c-410b-966d-375747d182b3
- date added to LUP
- 2026-07-06 12:36:36
- date last changed
- 2026-07-07 04:01:01
@article{62a222c2-8c8c-410b-966d-375747d182b3,
abstract = {{Researchers and civil society have proposed separating targets for emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal to prevent mitigation deterrence – the risk that the anticipation of future removals delays decarbonisation. In 2017, Sweden became the first state to adopt separated targets, specifying that its 2045 net-zero target must be reached through a minimum of 85% domestic emissions reductions, with the remaining 15% achievable through carbon removal. I reconstruct the policy process that resulted in the separated net-zero framework using Historical Materialist Policy Analysis based on interviews with seventeen policymakers, stakeholders and experts involved. My analysis shows that state knowledge apparatuses, especially climate scenarios, pre-structured a policy corridor that made carbon removal appear technically unavoidable rather than a political choice. The separation of targets was not a safeguard against mitigation deterrence; some actors viewed the quantification of a removals target as a potential license to delay. Moreover, the separation worked as a spatio-temporal fix which displaced conflicts between actors advocating rapid decarbonisation and a coalition seeking to protect the competitiveness of Swedish industry. The 15% removals target was a concession necessary to reach agreement on the 2045 net-zero date, a leftover of the compromise on 85% reductions rather than any assessment of sustainable removal potentials or what would be a socially necessary or globally just level of residual emissions. The Swedish case shows that without such reflexive assessment, and awareness of the prescriptive influence of climate scenarios, even separated targets can embed mitigation deterrence into climate policy.}},
author = {{Allesson, Jonas}},
issn = {{1462-9011}},
keywords = {{Carbon Dioxide Removal; Climate Policy; HMPA; Separated Targets; Carbon Removal; Sweden}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{07}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{Environmental Science and Policy}},
title = {{Separated targets are not enough : How spatiotemporal fixes and policy corridors embedded mitigation deterrence in Swedish net-zero politics}},
url = {{https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/files/254826235/SeparatedTargets.pdf}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.envsci.2026.104435}},
volume = {{182}},
year = {{2026}},
}