scholarly journals Taking deliberative research online: Lessons from four case studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 146879412110634
Author(s):  
Rebecca Willis ◽  
Andy Yuille ◽  
Peter Bryant ◽  
Duncan McLaren ◽  
Nils Markusson
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Online Research ◽  
Local Climate ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Online Setting ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Removal

Researchers using deliberative techniques tend to favour in-person processes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has added urgency to the question of whether meaningful deliberative research is possible in an online setting. This paper considers the reasons for taking deliberation online, including bringing people together more easily; convening international events; and reducing the environmental impact of research. It reports on four case studies: a set of stakeholder workshops considering greenhouse gas removal technologies, convened online in 2019, and online research workshops investigating local climate strategies; as well as two in-person processes which moved online due to COVID-19: Climate Assembly UK, a Citizens’ Assembly on climate change, and the Lancaster Citizens’ Jury on Climate Change. It sets out learnings from these processes, concluding that deliberation online is substantively different from in-person meetings, but can meet the requirements of deliberative research, and can be a rewarding and useful process for participants and researchers alike.

scholarly journals Permission to Say “Capitalism”: Principles for Critical Social Science Engagement With GGR Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Hall ◽  
Mark Davis
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Varieties Of Capitalism ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Critical Social Science ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Critical Social ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Removal

The grand scale of GGR deployment now necessary to avoid dangerous climate change warrants the use of grand interpretive theories of how the global economy operates. We argue that critical social science should be able to name the global economy as “capitalism”; and instead of speaking about “transforming the global economy” as a necessary precondition for limiting climate change, instead speak about transforming, or even transcending, capitalism. We propose three principles are helpful for critical social science researchers willing to name and analyse the structural features of capitalism and their relation to greenhouse gas removal technology, policy, and governance. These principles are: (1) Greenhouse Gas Removal technologies are likely to emerge within capitalism, which is crisis prone, growth dependent, market expanding, We use a broad Marxist corpus to justify this principle. (2) There are different varieties of capitalism and this will affect the feasibility of different GGR policies and supports in different nations. We draw on varieties of capitalism and comparative political economy literature to justify this principle. (3) Capitalism is more than an economic system, it is ideologically and culturally maintained. Globally-significant issues such as fundamentalism, institutional mistrust, precarity, and populism, cannot be divorced from our thinking about globally significant deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies. We use a broad Critical Theory body of work to explore the ideational project of maintaining capitalism and its relation to GGR governance and policy.

scholarly journals Advances and challenges of life cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas removal technologies to fight climate changes

2020 ◽  
Vol 244 ◽  
pp. 118896 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Goglio ◽  
A.G. Williams ◽  
N. Balta-Ozkan ◽  
N.R.P. Harris ◽  
P. Williamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Climate Changes ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Removal

Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies

Energy Policy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 125-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy Lomax ◽  
Mark Workman ◽  
Timothy Lenton ◽  
Nilay Shah
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Removal

scholarly journals Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pete Smith ◽  
Justin Adams ◽  
David J. Beerling ◽  
Tim Beringer ◽  
Katherine V. Calvin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Land Management ◽  
Wetland Restoration ◽  
Sustainable Development Goals ◽  
Management Options ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Development Goals ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Removal

Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.

scholarly journals Attractions of delay: Using deliberative engagement to investigate the political and strategic impacts of greenhouse gas removal technologies

2021 ◽  
pp. 251484862110662
Author(s):  
Duncan McLaren ◽  
Rebecca Willis ◽  
Bronislaw Szerszynski ◽  
David Tyfield ◽  
Nils Markusson
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
Carbon Reduction ◽  
Discursive Strategies ◽  
Gas Removal ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
Reduction Of Emissions ◽  
Removal Technologies ◽  
Mitigate Climate Change

Concerns have been raised that a focus on greenhouse gas removals (GGR) in climate models, scientific literature and other media might deter measures to mitigate climate change through reduction of emissions at source – the phenomenon of ‘mitigation deterrence’. Given the urgent need for climate action, any delay in emissions reduction would be worrying. We convened nine deliberative workshops to expose stakeholders to futures scenarios involving mitigation deterrence. The workshops examined ways in which deterrence might arise, and how it could be minimized. The deliberation exposed social and cultural interactions that might otherwise remain hidden. The paper describes narratives and ideas discussed in the workshops regarding political and economic mechanisms through which mitigation deterrence might occur, the plausibility of such pathways, and measures recommended to reduce the risk of such occurrence. Mitigation deterrence is interpreted as an important example of the ‘attraction of delay’ in a setting in which there are many incentives for procrastination. While our stakeholders accepted the historic persistence of delay in mitigation, some struggled to accept that similar processes, involving GGRs, may be happening now. The paper therefore also reviews the claims made by participants about mitigation deterrence, identifying discursive strategies that advocates of carbon removal might deploy to deflect concerns about mitigation deterrence. We conclude that the problem of mitigation deterrence is significant, needs to be recognized in climate policy, and its mechanisms better understood. Based on stakeholder proposals we suggest ways of governing GGR which would maximize both GGR and carbon reduction through other means.

FISHING FROM THE SAME POOL: THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE ON LOCAL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS IN SCOTLAND AND THE US PACIFIC NORTHWEST

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 1250011 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY JACKSON ◽  
BARBARA ILLSLEY ◽  
WILLIAM LYNCH
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Pacific Northwest ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Local Climate ◽  
Local Climate Change

The impact of environmental governance on the delivery of local climate change plans is examined by comparing two transatlantic sub-national jurisdictions which have adopted stringent targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Scotland and the Pacific Northwest region of the United States of America. The former relies on dirigiste top-down environmental governance, through which central government sets targets and imposes statutory duties that apply equally to all local councils. In the latter, a bottom-up multi-level form of environmental governance has emerged to compensate for the absence of a federal mandate. Specific action plans from a climate change pioneer in each location are assessed to test the strengths and limitations of these alternative modes of environmental governance: Portland in Oregon and Fife in Scotland. The Scottish dirigiste approach offers its local councils a consistent policy framework, allowing them to focus on specific measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while avoiding concerns about free-rider effects from non-participating councils. The asymmetrical uptake of climate change measures by United States municipalities exposes their domestic market to the risks of carbon leakage that America sought to avoid in global markets during negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document