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.
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: 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.”
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.
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.
The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA) at American University is pleased to announce the launch of a multi-year look at international governance pathways for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies.
There is a deeper set of conceptual arguments for splitting CDR and SRM that is entirely absent from Duncan McLaren’s argument.
There are a number of reasons – even with a 1.5oC target – why I suggest we should not rush too quickly to disentangle CDR from the broader idea of geoengineering.
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.