In this blog series, we have been exploring the question of whether those disproportionately subject to the negative impacts of…
When I got seriously interested in climate engineering, about 2011, there was little consideration of the diversity of effects it…
Broadly speaking, we may distinguish two types of justice: substantive and procedural. Both are relevant for climate policy. Substantive justice…
Inclusion of developing nations at the onset is crucial if climate engineering research and governance are to be directed toward appropriate outcomes.
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?
Who May Geoengineer: Self-defense, Civil Disobedience, and Revolution (Part One) – Patrick Taylor Smith
Much of the discussion about the appropriateness or usefulness of geoengineering has relied upon a shared assumption about who might end up deploying these new tools- rich and powerful nations. But what if weak and less powerful nations deploy geoengineering to defend themselves against climate impacts?
A talk by Holly J Buck – Why Climate Engineering and Sustainable Agriculture Need to Be Part of the Same Conversation
Holly J Buck, FCEA Faculty Fellow and PhD candidate at Cornell University gave a brief talk this afternoon on her recent work investigating the cultural, practical, and conversational binaries that imagine geoengineering as distinctly, problematically separate from agriculture. She argued that the false dichotomy between issues of food security, land reform, and progressive farming must be deconstructed and replaced with a language of cooperation.
Climate-induced migration and climate engineering: Three notes on how to think through them together – Holly J. Buck
All scholarship on the relationship between climate migration and unrest (including Kelley et al’s paper) makes clear that there is always a complex of factors, which begs the question: can international law make decisions on conferring migrant or refugee status if someone is, say, a 30% climate migrant, a 20% economic migrant, and a 50% war refugee? The crux of the challenge is obvious. Governing climate engineering, with its uncertainty and difficulty in attributing consequences, is a similarly complex institutional design challenge.
How are we to govern Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies? This is far from a straightforward question. SRM4G is 3-workshop project being conducted over the course of 2015 which seeks develop a process for structuring future-oriented deliberations on SRM governance.
In the context of climate engineering, we know that the alternative policy—even the ideal alternative policy—will also result in human rights violations.