Geoengineering the Climate: The Social and Ethical Implications

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. The Royal Society, Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (Science Policy Centre Report 10/09, 2009), ix. 2. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2007). 3. N. P. Toberg and P. Wadhams, Verification of Catlin Arctic Survey Surface Observation Techniques (University of Cambridge, UK: Polar Ocean Physics Group, October 2009); ACIA, Impacts of a Warming Climate—Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Synthesis Report (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 4. M. Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009); I. Lorenzoni, N. F. Pidgeon, and R. E. O'Connor, "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research," Risk Analysis 25, no 6 (2005): 1287–1398; M. Oppenheimer, "Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference: The Role of Science, the Limits of Science," Risk Analysis 25, no. 6 (2005): 1399–1407. 5. J. G. Canadell, C. Le Quere, M. R. Raupach, C. B. Field, E. T. Buitenhuis, P. Ciais, T. J. Conway, N. P. Gillett, R. A. Houghton, and G. Marland, "Contributions to Accelerating Atmospheric CO2 Growth from Economic Activity, Carbon Intensity, and Efficiency of Natural Sinks," PNAS 104, no. 47 (2007): 18866–18870; W. T. Pfeffer, J. T. Harper, and S. O'Neel, "Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise," Science 321 (2008): 1340–1343. 6. J. Hansen, "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, 308 (2005): 1431–1435. 7. Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Lords by Kevin Anderson, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmenvaud/uc616-ii/uc61602.htm (accessed 20 July 2009). 8. While our focus here is on geoengineering as a response to climate change, the term has also been used more broadly to describe the alteration of the earth's environment for other purposes. For information on the history of geoengineering, see J. R. Fleming, "The Climate Engineers," Wilson Quarterly Spring (2007): 45–60. 9. American Meteorological Society. AMS Policy Statement on Geoengineering the Climate System. (Adopted by the AMS Council on 20 July 2009); The Royal Society, note 1; J. J. Blackstock, D. S. Battisti, K. Caldeira, D. M. Eardley, J.I. Katz, D.W. Keith, A. A. N. Patrinos et al Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies (Santa Barbara: Novim, 2009) 10. Royal Society, note 1; although see also S. H. Schneider, "Geoengineering: Could We or Should We Make It Work?" Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) 366 (2008): 3843–3862. 11. Members of the "scientific community" are of course no more likely to speak with a single voice on geoengineering than members of the public. 12. J. Lovelock, "A Geophysiologist's Thoughts on Geoengineering." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (A) 366 (2008): 3883–3890. 13. D. Jamieson, "Ethics and Intentional Climate Change," Climatic Change 33 (1999): 323–336. 14. ETC Group, "Gambling with Gaia," ETC Group Communique 93 (Ottawa: ETC Group, 2007) 15. J. Lovelock, note 12. 16. N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, The Social Amplification of Risk (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003). 17. M. Hulme, see note 4. 18. Ibid. 19. H. M. Collins and R. Evans, Rethinking Expertise (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007); A. Irwin and B. Wynne, Eds., Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1997); D. J. Fiorino, "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms," Science, Technology & Human Values 15 (1990): 226–243; R. Flynn, P. Bellaby, and M. Ricci, "The Limits of Upstream Engagement: Citizens' Panels and Deliberation over Hydrogen Energy Technologies," Paper presented at the Society for Risk Analysis Conference: Karlstad, Sweden, 2009; G. Rowe and L. Frewer, "A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms," Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (2005): 251–289. 20. T. Dietz and P. C. Stern, Eds., Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making (National Research Council, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2008); P. C. Stern and H. V. Fineberg, Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Research Council Committee on Risk Characterization: Washington, DC, 1996); M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, Eds., Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenges of Engagement (London: Zed Books, 2005); R. Flynn et al, note 19. 21. W. N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M. J. Mace, Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006). 22. K. Bickerstaff, I. Lorenzoni, N. F. Pidgeon, W. Poortinga, and P. Simmons, "Re-Framing Nuclear Power in the UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power, Climate Change Mitigation and Radioactive Waste," Public Understanding of Science 17 (2008): 145–169; N. F. Pidgeon, I. Lorenzoni, and W. Poortinga, "Climate Change or Nuclear Power—No Thanks! A Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions and Risk Framing in Britain," Global Environmental Change 18 (2008): 69–85. 23. Steve Gardiner has also noted that geoengineering is often presented as an "argument from emergency," with the implication being that nothing (i.e., geoengineering) could be as bad as unmitigated climate change. S. Gardiner, Is Geoengineering the Lesser Evil? Accessed 02/10/09 http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/27600 (accessed 2nd October 2009). 24. J. R. Fleming, note 8; ETC Group, note 14; A. Robock, "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64, no. 2 (2008): 14–18; S. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming, http://aip.org/history/climate (accessed 20th July 2009). 25. M. C. MacCracken, "Geoengineering: Worthy of Cautious Evaluation," Climatic Change 77 (2006): 235–243. 26. J. J. Blackstock et al., note 9; D.G. Victor, "On the Regulation of Geoengineering", Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24, No. 2 (2008): 322–336. 27. S. H. Schneider, note 10, p. 3857. 28. The ETC Group (see note 14) reports that the following iron fertilization research was supported by private investors: P.W. Boyd, T. Jickells, C.S. Law, S. Blain, E.A. Boyle, K.O. Buesseler et al. "A Mesoscale Phytoplankton Bloom in the Polar Southern Ocean Stimulated by Iron Fertilization," Nature 407 (2000): 695–702. 29. D. Jameison, note 12. 30. A. Steffen, "Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism," http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009784.html (accessed 20 October 2009). 31. B. Lomborg, "Global Warming's Cheap Effective Solution," http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/lomborg43/English (accessed 20 October 2009); J. E. Bickell & L. Lane, An Analysis of Climate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change (Copenhagen Consensus Centre: Denmark, 2009); ETC Group, "The Emperor's New Climate: Geoengineering as 21st Century Fairytale," ETC Group Special Report (Ottawa: ETC Group, August 2009). 32. The Royal Society, note 1, p. 37. 33. S. Sorrell, J. Speirs, R. Bentley, A. Brandt, and R. Miller, An Assessment of the Evidence for a Near-Term Peak in Global Oil Production (London: UK Energy Research Centre, 2009). 34. T. Jackson, Prosperity Without growth? The Transition to a Sustainable Economy (London: Sustainable Development Commission, 2009); N. Pidgeon and C. Butler. "Risk Analysis and Climate Change," Environmental Politics 18, no. 5 (2009): 670–688. 35. M. Hulme, note 4. 36. S. Davies, P. Macnaghten, and M. Kearnes, Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy, Part I of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology (Durham: Durham University, 2009). 37. B. A. Turner and N. F. Pidgeon. Man-Made Disasters (Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997); European Environment Agency, Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000, Environmental Issue Report no. 22 (European Environment Agency, Copenhagen: 2001). 38. J. Lovelock, note 12, p. 3888. 39. J. J. Blackstock et al., note 9. 40. G. Rowe and L. Frewer, note 19. 41. A. Irwin and B. Wynne, note 19; M. Leach et al., note 19; G. Rowe and L. Frewer, note 19. 42. A. Malka, J. A. Krosnick, and G. Langer, "The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking," Risk Analysis 25, no. 5 (2009): 633–647; D. M. Kahan, D. Braman, P. Slovic, J. Gastil, and G. Cohen, "Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology," Nature Nanotechnology 4, no. 2 (2009): 87–90. 43. N. Pidgeon and T. Rogers-Hayden. "Opening Up Nanotechnology Dialogue with the Publics: Risk Communication or 'upstream engagement'?" Health, Risk & Society 9, no. 2 (2007): 191–210; The Royal Society & the Royal Academy of Engineering, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, RS Policy Document 19/04, (London: Royal Society, 2004); T. Rogers-Hayden and N. Pidgeon. "Moving Engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's Inquiry," Public Understanding of Science 16 (2007): 345–364; J. Wilsdon and R. Willis. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos: London, 2004); R. Doubleday. "Risk, Public Engagement and Reflexivity: Alternative Framings of the Public Dimensions of Nanotechnology," Health, Risk & Society 9, no. 2 (2007): 211–227. 44. D. H. Guston and D. Sarewitz, "Real-Time Technology Assessment," Technology in Society 24 (2002): 93–109; P. Macnaghten, M. B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne, "Nanotechnology, Governance and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?" Science Communication 27 (2005): 268–291. 45. M. Kearnes, R. Grove-White, P. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne, "From Bio to Nano: Learning Lessons from the UK Agricultural Biotechnology Controversy," Science as Culture 15, no. 4 (2006): 291–307. 46. J. Walls, T. Rogers-Hayden, A. Mohr, and T. O'Riordan. "Seeking Citizens' Views on GM Crops—Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand." Environment 47, no. 7 (2005): 22–36. 47. For a more extensive typology of public engagement mechanisms, see G. Rowe and L. J. Frewer, "A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms," Science Technology Human Values 30 (2005): 251–290. 48. T. Rogers-Hayden & N. Pidgeon, note 42; N. Pidgeon, B. Herr Harthorn, K. Bryant, and T. Rogers-Hayden, "Deliberating the Risks of Nanotechnologies for Energy and Health Applications in the United States and United Kingdom," Nature Nanotechnology 4, no. 2 (2009): 95–98. 49. J. Grundahl, "The Danish Consensus Conference Model," in S. Joss and J. Durant, Eds., Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum, London: 1995); J. Walls et al., note 46. 50. T Rogers-Hayden & N. Pidgeon, see note 42. 51. N. Pidgeon et al, note 48 52. R. Flynn et al., note 19. 53. World Wide Views on Global Warming, http://www.wwviews.org/files/images/WWViews_info_sheet-v80-27_September%2009.pdf (accessed 2nd October 2009). 54. T. Rogers-Hayden & N. Pidgeon, note 43. 55. S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, "Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science," in S. Krimsky and D. Golding, Eds., Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992). 56. The Royal Society, note 1, p. 60. 57. T. Satterfield, M. Kandlikar, C. E. H. Beaudrie, J. Conti, and B. H. H. Harthorn, "Anticipating the Perceived Risk of Nanotechnologies," Nature Nanotechnology 4 no. 6 (2009): 752–758. 58. M. Kearnes et al., note 45. 59. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Nanotechnologies for the Targeted Delivery of Therapeutic Agents & Nanotechnologies for Diagnostics: Summary of Public Consultation Findings (Swindon: EPSRC, 2008). 60. D.M. Kahan et al., note 42. 61. Personal communication from Tim Kruger, Director of Oxford Geoengineering Research. 62. O. Renn & M. Rocco. Nanotechnology Risk Governance, International Risk Governance Council White Paper No. 2, (Geneva: International Risk Governance Council, 2006); Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering, note 43. 63. G. Monbiot, The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order (New York: Harper Perrenial, 2004). 64. S. Jasanoff, "'Let Them Eat Cake': GM Foods and the Democratic Imagination," In M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B.Wynne, Eds., Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenges of Engagement (London: Zed Books, 2005). 65. All information derived from techniques reviewed by the Royal Society, note 1. 66. The approaches are adapted from Box 7.4 in the Royal Society & Royal Society of Engineering report on nanotechnology (p. 65), note 43.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.