What role should negative-emission technologies (NETs) play in supporting global climate change mitigation? This is a polarizing question in both academic circles and increasingly public discourse. A common argument is that NETs present a risky or high-stakes gamble to climate change mitigation.

In this paper, we challenge this opposition to NETs. We show how this opposition is largely based on the results of integrated assessment models, which are the models that form the basis of IPCC reports. These models often show that a late-century, large-scale deployment of NETs is required to stabilize global warming to at or below 2°C this century. However, models are not real life, and such long-range forecasts are fraught with limitations. As a result, this is not a firm foundation for opposition. We make the case for place-based, bottom-up approaches for assessing the potential role for NETs in mitigation portfolios. Bottom-up approaches reveal the many ways in which NETs could (or could not) provide value to enhance economy-wide energy transition feasibility, such as through social and environmental co-benefits. For example, California has highly favorable attributes for NETs deployment. While applied to NETs, our findings more broadly suggest that more circumspect approaches are needed regarding the use of global models to inform mitigation pathways and strategies at jurisdictional scales.