scholarly journals Using decision pathway surveys to inform climate engineering policy choices

2016 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Gregory ◽  
Terre Satterfield ◽  
Ariel Hasell
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
Factual Knowledge ◽  
Novel Technologies ◽  
Values And Beliefs ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Demographic Background

Over the coming decades citizens living in North America and Europe will be asked about a variety of new technological and behavioral initiatives intended to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change. A common approach to public input has been surveys whereby respondents’ attitudes about climate change are explained by individuals’ demographic background, values, and beliefs. In parallel, recent deliberative research seeks to more fully address the complex value tradeoffs linked to novel technologies and difficult ethical questions that characterize leading climate mitigation alternatives. New methods such as decision pathway surveys may offer important insights for policy makers by capturing much of the depth and reasoning of small-group deliberations while meeting standard survey goals including large-sample stakeholder engagement. Pathway surveys also can help participants to deepen their factual knowledge base and arrive at a more complete understanding of their own values as they apply to proposed policy alternatives. The pathway results indicate more fully the conditional and context-specific nature of support for several “upstream” climate interventions, including solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal technologies.

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Heyward
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management

Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

scholarly journals Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering

Humanities ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Oomen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Future Experimentation ◽  
Fundamental Objection ◽  
Climatic System ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
And Control

The development of climate engineering research has historically depended on mostly western, holistic perceptions of climate and climate change. Determinations of climate and climate change as a global system have played a defining role in the development of climate engineering. As a result, climate engineering research in general, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular, is primarily engaged in research of quantified, whole-Earth solutions. I argue that in the potential act of solar radiation management, a view of climate change that relies on the holistic western science of the climatic system is enshrined. This view, dependent on a deliberative intentionality that seems connected to anthropocenic notions of responsibility and control, profoundly influences the assumptions and research methods connected to climate engineering. While this may not necessarily be to the detriment of climate engineering proposals—in fact, it may be the only workable conception of SRM—it is a conceptual limit to the enterprise that has to be acknowledged. Additionally, in terms of governance, reliability, and cultural acceptance, this limit could be a fundamental objection to future experimentation (or implementation).

scholarly journals Sensitivity of simulated climate to latitudinal distribution of solar insolation reduction in solar radiation management

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (15) ◽  
pp. 7769-7779 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Modak ◽  
G. Bala
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Sulfate Aerosols ◽  
Latitudinal Distribution ◽  
Solar Insolation ◽  
Global Mean Temperature ◽  
Mean Climate ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Global Mean

Abstract. Solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering has been proposed as a potential option to counteract climate change. We perform a set of idealized geoengineering simulations using Community Atmosphere Model version 3.1 developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research to investigate the global hydrological implications of varying the latitudinal distribution of solar insolation reduction in SRM methods. To reduce the solar insolation we have prescribed sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere. The radiative forcing in the geoengineering simulations is the net forcing from a doubling of CO2 and the prescribed stratospheric aerosols. We find that for a fixed total mass of sulfate aerosols (12.6 Mt of SO4), relative to a uniform distribution which nearly offsets changes in global mean temperature from a doubling of CO2, global mean radiative forcing is larger when aerosol concentration is maximum at the poles leading to a warmer global mean climate and consequently an intensified hydrological cycle. Opposite changes are simulated when aerosol concentration is maximized in the tropics. We obtain a range of 1 K in global mean temperature and 3% in precipitation changes by varying the distribution pattern in our simulations: this range is about 50% of the climate change from a doubling of CO2. Hence, our study demonstrates that a range of global mean climate states, determined by the global mean radiative forcing, are possible for a fixed total amount of aerosols but with differing latitudinal distribution. However, it is important to note that this is an idealized study and thus not all important realistic climate processes are modeled.

scholarly journals Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals

2019 ◽  
Vol 475 (2229) ◽  
pp. 20190255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse L. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Outdoor Activities ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
Radiation Modification ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Governance Roles ◽  
Radiation Management

Although solar geoengineering (alternatively ‘solar radiation management’ or ‘solar radiation modification’) appears to offer a potentially effective, inexpensive and technologically feasible additional response to climate change, it would pose serious physical risks and social challenges. Governance of its research, development and deployment is thus salient. This article reviews proposals for governing solar geoengineering. Its research may warrant dedicated governance to facilitate effectiveness and to reduce direct and socially mediated risks. Because states are not substantially engaging with solar geoengineering, non-state actors can play important governance roles. Although the concern that solar geoengineering would harmfully lessen abatement of greenhouse gas emissions is widespread, what can be done to reduce such displacement remains unclear. A moratorium on outdoor activities that would surpass certain scales is often endorsed, but an effective one would require resolving some critical, difficult details. In the long term, how to legitimately make decisions regarding whether, when and how solar geoengineering would be used is central, and suggestions how to do so diverge. Most proposals to govern commercial actors, who could provide goods and services for solar geoengineering, focus on intellectual property policy. Compensation for possible harm from outdoor activities could be through liability or a compensation fund. The review closes with suggested lines of future inquiry.

scholarly journals Assessing climate policies: Catastrophe avoidance and the right to sustainable development

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-150
Author(s):  
Daniel Edward Callies ◽  
Darrel Moellendorf
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
International Climate Policy ◽  
Negative Emissions ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
The Right ◽  
Do So

With the significant disconnect between the collective aim of limiting warming to well below 2°C and the current means proposed to achieve such an aim, the goal of this paper is to offer a moral assessment of prominent alternatives to current international climate policy. To do so, we’ll outline five different policy routes that could potentially bring the means and goal in line. Those five policy routes are: (1) exceed 2°C; (2) limit warming to less than 2°C by economic de-growth; (3) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation only; (4) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation and widespread deployment of Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs); and (5) limit warming to less than 2°C by traditional mitigation, NETs, and Solar Radiation Management as a fallback. In assessing these five policy routes, we rely primarily upon two moral considerations: the avoidance of catastrophic climate change and the right to sustainable development. We’ll conclude that we should continue to aim at the two-degree target, and that to get there we should use aggressive mitigation, pursue the deployment of NETs, and continue to research SRM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document