Targeted policy and governance instruments are essential for developing a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) sector aligned with climate change mitigation scenarios. As a result, a large share of the scientific literature on CDR concentrates on these aspects. However, current CDR deployment and development are mainly driven by private organisations. While their role in CDR governance is generally acknowledged, important context regarding their perspectives, motivations and decision-making processes is lacking. This study addresses this gap by conducting seventy-nine interviews with senior representatives from organisations engaged in the early CDR market, including technology suppliers, credit purchasers, and financiers. We explore their views on key components of fair and equitable CDR systems. Our analysis reveals varying priorities across interviewed actors, including strong regulatory frameworks, market transparency, accountability, funding mechanisms and (climate) justice, emphasising historical responsibility, revenue distribution and community engagement. Additionally, we identify conflicting perspectives on the involvement of oil and gas sectors and the balance between rapid scale-up and thorough, inclusive processes. This research offers critical insights into the role of private organisations in shaping the governance of the emerging CDR sector, highlighting the complex interplay of market dynamics and ethical considerations.

Weighted lottery proposals give guidance in rescue dilemma situations by balancing the demands of comparative and absolute fairness. While they do not advocate for saving the greater number outright, they are responsive to absolute fairness insofar as they show a certain sensitivity to the numbers involved. In this paper we investigate what criterion of absolute fairness we should demand weighted lotteries to fulfill. We do so by way of critically examining what is probably the most sophisticated weighted lottery on the market: Gerard Vong's Exclusive Composition-Sensitive (EXCS) lottery. We find that both the standard that seems most common in the debate, and a different standard Vong uses to criticize Jens Timmermann's Individualist Lottery are in contradiction to basic demands placed upon weighted lotteries and are therefore unsuitable as necessary conditions for absolute fairness. We instead propose a purely gradual understanding of absolute fairness.

What is the practical relevance of the Non-Identity Problem (NIP) for our climate change-related duties? Climate change and the NIP are often discussed together, but there is surprisingly little work on the practical relevance of the NIP for the ethics of climate change. The central claim of this article is that the NIP makes a relatively minor difference to our climate change-related duties even if we pursue what has become known as the ‘bite the bullet’ strategy: endorse a person-affecting view threatened by the NIP and not modify it in such a way as to evade the NIP. In particular I will argue that a harm-based view can justify the big-picture call for action emerging from the field of climate ethics. The key to reaching this conclusion is pointing out the consequences of our climate change-related decisions for people whose existence does not depend on these very decisions.