Climate engineering (CE) is an umbrella term for a set of mostly prospective technologies that might be developed and used…
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.
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.
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.
There is a deeper set of conceptual arguments for splitting CDR and SRM that is entirely absent from Duncan McLaren’s argument.
The advantages and disadvantages of solar geoengineering ought to be compared to each other using a cost-benefit analysis. While there has been much discussion about the trade-offs inherent in solar geoengineering, there has been surprisingly little quantitative, formal modeling of these trade-offs.
Is staying below a 2C rise in temperature is a realistic or fantastic target? There’s been talk about this lately, in Nature and on this forum. Beneath this question lies another question: Is there hope?
The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators – Prof John Shepherd CBE FRS and Andy Parker
Nothing we know about solar geoengineering should distract you from the task of agreeing deep and binding cuts in CO2 emissions, and effective support for adaptation to climate change. Ignore the siren calls of anyone who attempts another ‘Lomborg gambit’ by dangling solar geoengineering as an alternative to emissions cuts, and get on and agree the climate deal that we – and the planet – so desperately need.
Climate scientists have begun to calculate how we are doing on the 2C goal, and the math is a little frightening. Not only do we have little wiggle room in terms of how much carbon we can emit to have any certainty of staying under this limit, but it will be global actions in the next two decades that determine our fate.