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.
In a brief phone chat recorded by the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment as part of a new series, Dr. Daniel…
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.
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
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 coming weeks, I’ll be studying whether or not NGOs will release new statements about climate engineering in light of last week’s National Academy of Sciences National Research Council reports on the topic.
In the context of climate engineering, we know that the alternative policy—even the ideal alternative policy—will also result in human rights violations.