The discussions on Geoengineering Watch illustrate how this new anti-geoengineering platform, grounded on the premise of existing and ongoing climate manipulation, relates to broader hostilities towards experts and concerns about class inequality. We can expect these underlying tensions around inequality to grow under the current administration, thus potentially attracting new people to an anti-geoengineering movement. It’s possible that forming an opinion on geoengineering becomes not an impersonal assessment of a technology, but an identity position.
What has social science research on the public perception of climate engineering done? And what can it do? – Holly Jean Buck
The potentially useful role of social studies in evaluating climate engineering deserves further consideration. The stakes of not understanding and communicating with all the parts of society are higher than ever, and the time is ripe for more collaborative work on environmental futures writ large. I have a few ideas and questions about how to move forward.
We welcomed the response of Wil Burns to our recent article, “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome.” Ultimately, in his comments we have not found anything that refutes what we wrote. We remain convinced that the claims that we cited are unsupported by existing evidence, unlikely to occur, or greatly exaggerated.
Commentary: Can a Philosopher and a Scientist Co-teach a Class on Climate Engineering? – Thomas Ackerman & Stephen Gardiner
The answer to this question is ‘yes’ because we did it, so perhaps it is more appropriate to ask whether such a class can be taught successfully. Climate engineering provides an interesting, and perhaps disturbing, case study of the nexus of science (can we do it), ethics (should we do it), and governance (how would we do it). The idea of co-teaching a class on ethics and science focused on climate engineering originated with Steve Gardiner in mid-2013, leading to a class that we co-taught at the University of Washington during Winter Quarter 2015. Our intent here is to summarize our experience and provide some lessons learned.
Commentary: A Response to “Five Solar Geoengineering Tropes That Have Outstayed Their Welcome” – Wil Burns
IN A NEW PIECE in the journal Earth Futures, Jesse Reynolds, Andy Parker and Peter Irvine take on what they characterize as “Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome.” While I think it’s salutary to engage in an ongoing colloquy about the risks and benefits of solar radiation management (SRM) approaches, it will be my contention in this Comment that the article doesn’t wholly dispel many of the concerns outlined in the piece. Additionally, I believe it raises some additional issues that are ripe for debate as we continue to scrutinize the emerging field of climate geoengineering. In this Comment, I will address the authors’ take on three of these alleged “tropes.”
A new CIGI report examines the specific provisions of the Paris Agreement with a view to identifying where legal and policy questions in relation to climate engineering are likely to arise.
New CIGI Report – The Paris Agreement and Climate Geoengineering Governance: The Need For a Human-rights Based Component
This paper suggests a framework for achieving the objective of protecting human rights in the context of climate change response measures.
In 2015 and 2016, a bill was introduced in the Rhode Island House of Representatives to regulate climate geoengineering — an attempt that caught many by surprise, as legislating a technology with global impacts on the state level is a novel approach. In this forum, science and technology policy experts and political scientists discuss this move: its drawbacks, merits, and lessons learned.
Who May Geoengineer: Self-defense, Civil Disobedience, and Revolution (Part Two) – Patrick Taylor Smith
Can geoengineering by a victim, low-emitting state meet the requirements necessary to be justified as civil disobedience?
The international human right to science and its application to geoengineering research and innovation- Kristin Barham & Anna-Maria Hubert
While many general human rights articulated in international law are of consequence for geoengineering research and development, the normative framework of the right to science has particular relevance. This right has the potential to enhance accountability, transparency and participation, particularly in addressing the socio-technical risks associated with early research and innovation processes.