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.
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.
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?
In this brief video message, Simon Nicholson, Co-Director of the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, argues that after CoP 21 in Paris, we must have more honest assessment of goals and the tools available to us. This means, he argues, a need for open consideration of ideas that to this point have largely been seen…
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.
Is staying below a 2C rise in temperature is a realistic or fantastic target? There’s been talk about this lately, in Nature and on this forum. Beneath this question lies another question: Is there hope?
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.
Climate scientists have begun to calculate how we are doing on the 2C goal, and the math is a little frightening. Not only do we have little wiggle room in terms of how much carbon we can emit to have any certainty of staying under this limit, but it will be global actions in the next two decades that determine our fate.
The book’s strength is that it largely achieves these two potentially contradictory tasks. Morton delivers a utopian scenario for climate engineering while still giving enough attention to its possible pitfalls and missteps to reveal just how difficult such a path would be to craft in reality. Time and again he emphasizes the need for care, compassion and justice in in both the purposes and design of a climate geoengineering intervention.
In a brief phone chat recorded by the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment as part of a new series, Dr. Daniel Sarewitz, Co-Director, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Arizona State Unviersity, chats with Jane Flegal, Graduate Student in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley. They discuss the…