共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 3 毫秒
1.
Research on geoengineering – deliberate management of the Earth’s climate system – is being increasingly discussed within the science and policy communities. While justified as necessary in order to expand the range of options available to policy makers in the future, geoengineering research has already engendered public controversy. Proposed projects have been protested or cancelled, and calls for a governance framework abound. In this paper, we consider the reasons why geoengineering research might be subject to additional governance and suggest mechanisms that might be usefully applied in developing such a framework. We consider criteria for governance as raised by a review of the growing literature on geoengineering and other controversial scientific topics. We suggest three families of concern that any governance research framework must respond to: the direct physical risks of the research; the transparency and responsibility in decision making for the research; and the larger societal meanings of the research. We review what mechanisms might be available to respond to these three families of concern, and consider how these might apply to geoengineering research. 相似文献
2.
Recent attempts to conduct experiments in climate ‘geoengineering’ have demonstrated the deeply controversial nature of this field of scientific research. Social scientists have begun to explore public perceptions of geoengineering, and have documented a significant degree of concern over the effective governance of research and experimentation in this area. Yet, public perception on what constitutes a legitimate geoengineering experiment and how it should be governed remains under-researched. In this article we report on a series of experimental deliberative workshops with members of the public designed to elicit and explicate diverse understandings of geoengineering experiments and their governance. In contrast to previous methods of invited public deliberation, which privilege egalitarian-consensual models of discourse and decision-making, we test a novel approach that places majoritarian, individualistic, and consensual forms of public deliberation on an equal footing. Our study suggests that the perceived controllability of experimental interventions is central to public views on their acceptability, but that controllability is itself a complex, multifaceted quality, drawing together a set of heterogeneous concerns about the purpose and repercussions of scientific work. The citizens who participated in our workshops employed four criteria to adjudicate the acceptability of geoengineering experiments: (1) the degree of containment; (2) the uncertainty surrounding experimental outcomes; (3) the reversibility of impacts; and (4) the scientific purity of the enterprise. We theorize that the public legitimacy of geoengineering experiments depends on variable, context-specific combinations of these criteria, and that technical determinations of the proper ‘scale’ or ‘location’ for geoengineering research will be poor predictors of the sorts of public concerns that will be triggered by further experimentation in this area. 相似文献
3.
Daniel Bodansky 《Climatic change》2013,121(3):539-551
The potential of geoengineering to reverse global warming rapidly and cheaply makes it alluring to groups across the political spectrum. But geoengineering also poses significant risks and raises the specter of technology gone awry. This article analyzes the basic governance issues raised by geoengineering, including the possible functions, forms, objects and agents of governance. It then explores these issues by focusing on four scenarios of particular concern: inadequate research funding, premature rejection, unilateral individual action, and unilateral state action. 相似文献
4.
David R. Morrow 《Climatic change》2014,123(2):95-100
Stephen Gardiner argues that geoengineering does not meet the “canonical technical definition” of a global public good, and that it is misleading to frame geoengineering as a public good. A public good is something that is nonrival and nonexcludable. Contrary to Gardiner’s claims, geoengineering meets both of these criteria. Framing geoengineering as a public good is useful because it allows commentators to draw on the existing economic, philosophical, and social scientific literature on the governance of public goods. 相似文献
5.
Coral reefs are highly vulnerable to the impacts of rising marine temperatures and marine heatwaves. Mitigating dangerous climate change is essential and urgent, but many reef systems are already suffering on current levels of warming. Geoengineering options are worth exploring to protect the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) from extreme warming conditions, but we contend that they require strong governance and public consultation from the outset. Australian governments are currently funding feasibility testing of three geoengineering proposals for the GBR. Each proposal involves manipulating ocean or atmospheric conditions to lower water temperatures and thereby reduce the threat of mass coral bleaching events. Innovative strategies to protect the GBR and field testing of these is essential, but current laws do not guarantee robust governance for field testing of these technologies. Nor do they provide the foundation for a more coherent national policy on climate intervention technologies more generally. Responsible governance frameworks, including detailed risk assessment and early public consultation, are necessary for geoengineering research to build legitimacy and promote scientific progress.
Key policy insights
Marine heatwaves pose a serious threat to coral reefs, including Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef.
Australian governments have recognized the threats of warming waters, and are funding research of geoengineering options for the Great Barrier Reef.
The limited earlier field testing of geoengineering demonstrates the need for specific governance to manage risks, build legitimacy and maintain public support.
Australia requires a framework to govern geoengineering research and development before deployment of such technologies.
6.
《巴黎协定》引入了全球应对气候变化的1.5℃温控目标,但是没有就其实现路径做出清晰安排。实现1.5℃目标对全球减排提出更高要求,各国自主贡献目标距离该目标有较大差距,常规减排技术和政策也很难完成任务。在此背景下,国际上有关地球工程的讨论日渐升温。《巴黎协定》实际上已经包含了人工造林,碳捕获与封存/碳捕获与利用技术（CCS/CCUS),生物质能利用加CCS（BECCS）等负排放技术,这些都是地球工程范畴的碳移除技术（CDR),除此之外,更具争议性的太阳辐射管理（SRM）技术也引起更多关注。地球工程作为非常规技术选项,在1.5℃目标下的影响评估、技术选择、伦理学和国际治理等一系列问题的研究和探讨都十分必要。本文在分析和探讨上述问题的基础上,就中国应重视和加强地球工程研究与应对提出一些政策建议,指出要将地球工程纳入中国应对气候变化战略大框架,围绕1.5℃目标加强地球工程科学研究,并积极参与地球工程国际治理,合理发出中国声音。 相似文献
7.
8.
John Virgoe 《Climatic change》2009,95(1-2):103-119
This article explores international governance issues related to a possible future use of geoengineering techniques. Despite the serious arguments against geoengineering, policy-makers may start to take an interest in it in the medium term. The article identifies non-technical characteristics of geoengineering which might influence governance models, and then discusses three broad approaches: through the United Nations, by one state unilaterally, and through a consortium of states. An examination of international legal instruments reveals none that would pose an insuperable barrier to geoengineering. Finally, the article argues for early exploration of the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues raised by geoengineering, to maximize the chances of good, science-based multilateral decision making if and when geoengineering’s day arrives. 相似文献
9.
Wylie A. Carr Christopher J. Preston Laurie Yung Bronislaw Szerszynski David W. Keith Ashley M. Mercer 《Climatic change》2013,121(3):567-577
There have been a number of calls for public engagement in geoengineering in recent years. However, there has been limited discussion of why the public should have a say or what the public can be expected to contribute to geoengineering discussions. We explore how public engagement can contribute to the research, development, and governance of one branch of geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM), in three key ways: 1. by fulfilling ethical requirements for the inclusion of affected parties in democratic decision making processes; 2. by contributing to improved dialogue and trust between scientists and the public; and 3. by ensuring that decisions about SRM research and possible deployment are informed by a broad set of societal interests, values, and framings. Finally, we argue that, despite the nascent state of many SRM technologies, the time is right for the public to participate in engagement processes. 相似文献
10.
Stephen M. Gardiner 《Climatic change》2013,121(3):513-525
In early policy work, climate engineering is often described as a global public good. This paper argues that the paradigm example of geoengineering—stratospheric sulfate injection (hereafter ‘SSI’)—does not fit the canonical technical definition of a global public good, and that more relaxed versions are unhelpful. More importantly, it claims that, regardless of the technicalities, the public good framing is seriously misleading, in part because it arbitrarily marginalizes ethical concerns. Both points suggest that more clarity is needed about the aims of geoengineering policy—and especially governance—and that this requires special attention to ethics. 相似文献
11.
Douglas G. MacMartin Peter J. Irvine Ben Kravitz Joshua B. Horton 《Climate Policy》2013,13(10):1325-1339
ABSTRACTConsideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice of whether to deploy solar engineering, but decisions regarding how to deploy, and ongoing decision-making throughout deployment. Research on the governance of solar geoengineering to date has primarily engaged only with the question of whether to deploy. We examine the science of solar geoengineering in order to clarify the technical dimensions of decisions about deployment – both strategic and operational – and how these might influence governance considerations, while consciously refraining from making specific recommendations. The focus here is on a hypothetical deployment rather than governance of the research itself. We first consider the complexity surrounding the design of a deployment scheme, in particular the complicated and difficult decision of what its objective(s) would be, given that different choices for how to deploy will lead to different climate outcomes. Next, we discuss the on-going decisions across multiple timescales, from the sub-annual to the multi-decadal. For example, feedback approaches might effectively manage some uncertainties, but would require frequent adjustments to the solar geoengineering deployment in response to observations. Other decisions would be tied to the inherently slow process of detection and attribution of climate effects in the presence of natural variability. Both of these present challenges to decision-making. These considerations point toward particular governance requirements, including an important role for technical experts – with all the challenges that entails.Key policy insights
Decisions about solar geoengineering deployment will be informed not only by political choices, but also by climate science and engineering.
Design decisions will pertain to the spatial and temporal goals of a climate intervention and strategies for achieving those goals.
Some uncertainty can be managed through feedback, but this would require frequent operational decisions.
Some strategic decisions will depend on the detection and attribution of climatic effects from solar geoengineering, which may take decades.
Governance for solar geoengineering deployment will likely need to incorporate technical expertise for making short-term adjustments to the deployment and conducting attribution analysis, while also slowing down decisions made in response to attribution analysis to avoid hasty choices.
12.
地球工程作为人类影响全球气候的重要工程手段,具有重要的现实意义和科学价值。目前学界在地球工程对极端降水的影响研究方面还处于初始阶段。在这种背景下,基于BNU-ESM模式中地球工程(G4实验)和非地球工程(RCP4.5)情景下的日值降水数据,以95%和99%分位数作为强降水和极端强降水的阈值,分别对比分析两种情景下中国及七大地理分区的强降水和极端强降水在2010—2099年(整个研究时段)、2020—2069年(地球工程实施期间)和2070—2099年(地球工程实施结束)的差异特征。结果表明:(1) 2010—2099年地球工程有利于中国多数地区强降水量和极端强降水量的增加;(2)在实施地球工程的2020—2069年,整体上抑制了中国多数地区强降水量和极端强降水量;(3)在地球工程实施结束后的2070—2099年,地球工程后续影响整体上有利于中国多数地区强降水量和极端强降水量的增加;(4)不同研究时段中国七大地理分区的强降水量和极端强降水量变化趋势均有一定区域差异,且这种差异特征在不同研究时期表现在不同地区。 相似文献
13.
Stephen H. Schneider 《Climatic change》1996,33(3):291-302
Schemes to modify large-scale environment systems or to control climate have been seriously proposed for over 50 years, some to (1) increase temperatures in high latitudes, (2) increase precipitation, (3) decrease sea ice, (4) create irrigation opportunities or to offset potential global warming by spreading dust in the stratosphere to reflect away an equivalent amount of solar energy. These and other proposed geoengineering schemes are briefly reviewed from a historical perspective. More recently, many such schemes to advertently modify climate have been proposed as cheaper methods to counteract inadvertent climatic modifications than conventional mitigation techniques such as carbon taxes or pollutant emissions regulations. Whereas proponents argue cost effectiveness, critics of geoengineering argue that there is too much uncertainty to either (1) be confident that any geoengineering scheme would work as planned, or (2) that the many decades of international political stability and cooperation needed for the continuous maintenance of such schemes to offset century long inadvertent efforts is problematic. Moreover, there is potential for transboundary conflicts should negative climatic events occur during geoengineering activities since, given all the large uncertainties, it could not be assured to victims of such events that the schemes were entirely unrelated to their damages. Nevertheless, although I believe it would be irresponsible to implement any large-scale geoengineering scheme until scientific, legal and management uncertainties are substantially narrowed, I do agree that, given the potential for large inadvertent climatic changes now being built into the earth system, more systematic study of the potential for geoengineering is probably needed. 相似文献
14.
针对冰盖的定向地球工程研究旨在增强冰盖稳定性和减缓冰盖物质流失,从源头上减少冰盖对海平面上升的贡献,有望为应对气候变化和保护海岸线争取几百年的时间。冰盖地球工程主要作用在冰底和冰架-海洋界面上,主要途径如下：(1)排干或冻结冰盖底部水来干燥冰床,增强冰盖底部摩擦力;(2)在海洋中建造人造岛来支撑漂浮的冰架;(3)在冰架前端建造水下隔离墙,阻止温暖的海水到达冰川底部以减缓其融化。冰盖地球工程包括数值模拟、方案设计、工程试验和政治法律等诸多方面的研究。国际上的研究团队正在开展数值模拟和方案设计方面的研究,工程试验和政治法律等方面的研究尚未起步。预计工程试验的难度阶梯很可能是从实验室试验开始,到小尺度的野外试验,接着到格陵兰冰盖的入海冰川,最后到南极冰盖的入海冰川。针对冰盖的定向地球工程研究很有可能成为21世纪全球变化领域新兴的研究方向。 相似文献
15.
Adam Millard-Ball 《Climatic change》2012,110(3-4):1047-1066
Geoengineering research has historically been inhibited by fears that the perceived availability of a technological fix for climate change, such as the deployment of space-based deflectors, may undermine greenhouse gas abatement efforts. I develop a game theoretic model to show that the credible threat of unilateral geoengineering may instead strengthen global abatement and lead to a self-enforcing climate treaty with full participation. A ‘rogue nation’ may wish to unilaterally geoengineer if it faces extreme climate damages (as with Tuvalu), or if there are minimal local side effects from geoengineering, such as hydrological cycle disruption or stratospheric ozone depletion. However, the costly global side effects of geoengineering may make it individually rational for other countries to reduce emissions to the level where this rogue nation no longer wishes to unilaterally geoengineer. My results suggest a need to model the impacts of a “selfish geoengineer” intent only on maximizing net domestic benefits, as well as a “benevolent geoengineer” out to restore global mean temperature and minimize global side effects. 相似文献
16.
曹龙 《气候变化研究进展》2019,15(5):487-492
太阳辐射管理地球工程是应对气候变化的备用措施。地球工程模式比较计划（GeoMIP）是第六次国际耦合模式比较计划（CMIP6）的重要组成部分。GeoMIP设计了一系列理想化地球工程试验,包括直接减少太阳辐射强度、向平流层注入硫酸盐气溶胶、向海表上空云层注入气溶胶凝结核、增加海水反照率等。在GeoMIP的统一模拟框架下开展地球工程模拟试验,进一步揭示了不同地球工程措施对全球气候的影响和作用机理,从而帮助我们更好地认知气候系统对地球工程的响应过程。更多的中国气候模式参加GeoMIP将提升我国在地球工程研究和国际气候谈判中的国际影响力和话语权。 相似文献
17.
Dale Jamieson 《Climatic change》2013,121(3):527-537
In this paper I discuss the nature of geoengineering, some of its attractions, and some reasons for concern. I claim that there is confusion in the use of the term ‘geoengineering’ that is related to larger concerns about the language in which responses to climate change are discussed. I conclude that despite some reasonable grounds for suspicion, research in areas that involve carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management should go on as part of the general portfolio of climate-related research, competing with the full panoply of other possible responses to climate change. 相似文献
18.
Solar radiation management techniques are a class of geoengineering methods designed to reflect some of the inbound sunlight back into space with the intended effect of arresting further warming of the planet and thus counteracting global warming. In this article we examine current debates on solar radiation management governance, clarifying a number of assumptions that persist and why these require further scrutiny. Building on existing research we articulate a more critical role that the social sciences should be playing in public engagement with solar radiation management. We develop a deliberative focus group methodology that aims to open up deliberation on the technology, focusing explicitly on the kinds of world that its deployment would bring into being. Our findings, based on an analysis of public discourse, suggest that solar radiation management would be publicly acceptable only under very specific, and highly contingent, conditions. Given the sensed implausibility of these conditions being realised in the real world, we set out the implications for solar radiation management governance. We explain why solar radiation management was perceived as likely to create a particular kind of world, one with an increased probability of geopolitical conflict, a new condition of global experimentality, and major threats to democratic governance. How to bring these issues into solar radiation management governance entails an important but challenging role for the social sciences. 相似文献
19.
Adam Corner Karen Parkhill Nick Pidgeon Naomi E. Vaughan 《Global Environmental Change》2013,23(5):938-947
Anthropogenic influence on the climate – and possible societal responses to it – offers a unique window through which to examine the way people think about and relate to the natural world. This paper reports data from four, one-day deliberative workshops conducted with members of the UK public during early 2012. The workshops focused on geoengineering – the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment – as one of three possible responses to climate change (alongside mitigation and adaptation). Here, we explore one of the most pervasive and wide-ranging themes to emerge from the workshops: whether geoengineering represented an unprecedented human intervention into ‘nature’, and what the moral consequences of this might be. Using the concept of ‘messing with nature’ as an analytical lens, we explore public perceptions of geoengineering. We also reflect on why ‘messing with nature’ was such a focal point for debate and disagreement, and whether the prospect of geoengineering may reveal new dimensions to the way that people think about the natural world, and their relationship to it. 相似文献
20.
Reviewing the existing studies of public perception and drawing analogies from other risk technologies, this paper explores the public positions on research and implementation of geoengineering as a means to combat climate change. Existing studies on geoengineering perceptions show low levels of awareness and a lack of knowledge. Hence, existing attitudes on geoengineering can be judged instable and stimulus-dependent. When judged in isolation, at least one third favors the use of geoengineering technologies preferring CDR over SRM technologies; when judged in comparison to other climate mitigation options, approval rates lose considerably support. Moreover, people seem to cautiously support research but oppose deployment while attitude formation depends on personal values and belief systems. The results of the empirical studies were fed into a Delphi workshop with experts for reflecting on the future development of public opinion and for designing a communication and public involvement process that corresponds to the empirical insights gained from the perception studies. 相似文献