In this blog series, we have been exploring the question of whether those disproportionately subject to the negative impacts of…
Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity
A post written by Jane Flegal and Aarti Gupta, summarizing a recent paper in International Environmental Agreements Solar geoengineering ideas remain…
Broadly speaking, we may distinguish two types of justice: substantive and procedural. Both are relevant for climate policy. Substantive justice…
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?
Overall, taking a closer look at the non-ideal-theoretic reasons for climate engineering weakens the argument for SRM but strengthens the argument for CDR—especially if it were used in ways that prevent climate policy from making it harder for the global poor to lift themselves out of poverty.
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.
The Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC14) was the largest geoengineering meeting to date, bringing over 350 people together in Berlin in August 2014. The most prominent controversy at CEC14 was the introduction of a document – the “Berlin Declaration” –that those attending could choose to support. The document, drafted by representatives of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, suggested some steps forward for governing solar geoengineering research. The story of the response to this document and its eventual withdrawal should hold interest for anyone concerned with the governance of emerging technologies or openness in science policy
In the context of climate engineering, we know that the alternative policy—even the ideal alternative policy—will also result in human rights violations.
As we move more quickly toward experimentation and potential implementation of CE, in order to ensure an inclusive, transparent decision-making process and to responsibly account for the possible negative impacts of CE interventions, the role of human rights must be seriously considered.