The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/the-emergent-politics-of-geoengineering(5db25b16-0faf-47f9-87a8-e90b88c7c2a9).html

The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

THESIS › DOCTORAL THESIS (COMPILATION)

• Overview
• Cite
• BibTeX

Abstract

This thesis examines the role of science in the earliest stages of the political process. It does this by studying the emergence of ‘geoengineering’ on the political agenda. The term describes a set of ideas on how to stabilize global temperature by intervening into the Earth’s natural systems, and was subject to a strong taboo in the scientific community until the mid-2000s. Yet within a decade, it has become relevant to international climate politics. To understand how this transition took place, the thesis uses mixed methods to study the causal mechanisms by which geoengineering became an object of governance. Paper I describes the internal dynamics of a scientific community that helped transform geoengineering into a distinct, salient and malleable governance object. It explains how social cohesion, brokerage and diversity acted as important mechanisms in this process. Paper II studies the role of authoritative scientific assessments in making geoengineering a normal and relevant topic for research. It shows how such assessments act as a form of de facto governance in shaping the activities of a research landscape. Paper III identifies similarities and differences in the way that different sub-areas of climate change policy are governed. It suggests that, if a problem structure is perceived to be malign, this makes it less conducive to public governance. Conversely, if a problem structure comes to be perceived as more benign, this facilitates public governance. Paper IV examines the role of problem definition and ‘institutional fit’, evaluating how geoengineering matches with the expectations of government actors. It discusses three areas where such fit is lacking, and how this makes it difficult for government officials to form a political position on geoengineering. The results of this study flow into the description of a pattern that seems to be important at many different stages of the opinion-shaping process. This pattern includes the introduction of a topic to a new audience; the audience’s heated debate around this topic; the intervention of an actor with authority; and the streamlining of the audience’s debate according to the authoritative actor’s judgement. Found at many different levels of the political process, the pattern may explain why some topics become subject to political decision making, and others do not.

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew,  cc List

I am almost finished reading this - and found it to be first-rate.  Biochar is mentioned only twice (only found once by a search - the other in a figure/graph) - and so there is essentially nothing to quibble about for biochar.  Still, the perspective of an expert in political science (as opposed to the usual geo view on morals and ethics by Philosophers) should be very helpful to anyone remotely related to either CDR or SRM.

There are two open-source papers already available to us, but two more in process.  All should be helpful to anyone trying to implement policy.

This is one example where it makes sense to combine discussion of both SRM and CDR. 

I think detailed “Politics” material on each Geo approach should be the next step.  Biochar is very different from the examples given here, but there are many lessons for biochar herein.   I hope Dr. Moller ext4ends her analyses.

Ron

--
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/CAJ3C-057meF27vzD20dqjZsCBAOPiGq5dn%2Br2Sf4AaNc%2B951Hw%40mail.gmail.com.