When I got seriously interested in climate engineering, about 2011, there was little consideration of the diversity of effects it…
Increasing Ambition with Blue Carbon: Protecting Coastal Wetland Ecosystems as a Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategy to Meet the Paris Agreement’s Goals
In 2015, the historic Paris Agreement set a global goal of limiting warming to “well below 2 degrees” through a…
Broadly speaking, we may distinguish two types of justice: substantive and procedural. Both are relevant for climate policy. Substantive justice…
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.