The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.707

The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

Duncan McLaren  Olaf Corry

First published: 14 March 2021

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.707

Edited by: Mike Hulme, Editor‐in‐Chief

Funding information: Det Frie Forskningsråd, Grant/Award Number: 116716

About

Sections

 

Share on

Abstract

Research into solar geoengineering, far from being societally neutral, is already highly intertwined with its emerging politics. This review outlines ways in which research conditions or constructs solar geoengineering in diverse ways, including the forms of possible material technologies of solar geoengineering; the criteria and targets for their assessment; the scenarios in which they might be deployed; the publics which may support or oppose them; their political implications for other climate responses, and the international relations, governance mechanisms, and configurations of power that are presumed in order to regulate them. The review also examines proposals for governance of research, including suggested frameworks, principles, procedures, and institutions. It critically assesses these proposals, revealing their limitations given the context of the conditioning effects of current research. The review particularly highlights problems of the reproduction of Northern norms, instrumental approaches to public engagement, a weak embrace of precaution, and a persistent—but questionable—separation of research from deployment. It details complexities inherent in effective research governance which contribute to making the pursuit of solar geoengineering risky, controversial, and ethically contentious. In conclusion, it suggests a case for an explicit, reflexive research governance regime developed with international participation. It suggests that such a regime should encompass modeling and social science, as well as field experimentation, and must address not only technical and environmental, but also the emergent social and political, implications of research.

This article is categorized under:

Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Abstract

Extant proposals for governance of solar geoengineering research (red boxes) fail to encompass critical emergent social and political implications (blue boxes). Explicit, international, reflexive governance covering all forms of research (from modeling to experiments) is urgently needed.

image 

[Geoeng Info]

Publication link -> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.707

Abstract

Research into solar geoengineering, far from being societally neutral, is already highly intertwined with its emerging politics. This review outlines ways in which research conditions or constructs solar geoengineering in diverse ways, including the forms of possible material technologies of solar geoengineering; the criteria and targets for their assessment; the scenarios in which they might be deployed; the publics which may support or oppose them; their political implications for other climate responses, and the international relations, governance mechanisms, and configurations of power that are presumed in order to regulate them. The review also examines proposals for governance of research, including suggested frameworks, principles, procedures, and institutions. It critically assesses these proposals, revealing their limitations given the context of the conditioning effects of current research. The review particularly highlights problems of the reproduction of Northern norms, instrumental approaches to public engagement, a weak embrace of precaution, and a persistent—but questionable—separation of research from deployment. It details complexities inherent in effective research governance which contribute to making the pursuit of solar geoengineering risky, controversial, and ethically contentious. In conclusion, it suggests a case for an explicit, reflexive research governance regime developed with international participation. It suggests that such a regime should encompass modeling and social science, as well as field experimentation, and must address not only technical and environmental, but also the emergent social and political, implications of research.

This article is categorized under:

Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Duncan McLaren; Olaf Corry.

First published: 14 March 2021 . DOI

[Douglas MacMartin]

I could point to a number of vaguely-incoherent (or simply factually untrue) statements in here, but there’s one in particular that I haven’t the foggiest clue what it means:

 

“Unfortunately while the topics of investigation have been defined by Southern partners, the models, norms, and practices applied in DECIMALS remain primarily those of the dominant Northern research community.”

 

-          If “models” refers to the climate models used, well that’s true for climate change research too, so does that mean that all climate change research should cease until the South codes the exact same equations in the exact same programming languages?  Do we expect different answers if the equations are turned into computer code by someone from a different country?

-          Are the “norms and practices” intended to refer to things like writing papers that pass peer review?

 

I’m truly baffled by this sentence… would love to have someone shed some light on it.

 

doug

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpZ%3DpMroc6Wp-rgnf0cQKF23%2BYFZSjLaRVM2K%3Dv%3DrHwQoQ%40mail.gmail.com.