Climate engineering research attracts Slippery Slope concerns – the idea that initial research will inevitably lead to inappropriate deployment. Some have dismissed it as an unrealistic, unproductive critique. However, extant climate engineering discussions of the Slippery Slope discuss an unorganised set of different causal mechanisms with little detail. These range from technological cost reduction, to the creation of special interest lobby groups, to normalisation across society and policymakers. Dismissing the Slippery Slope may be premature if its causal nature is unclear, especially given the potentially high impacts and controversy of global climate engineering deployment. Disaggregating and clarifying the Slippery Slope can reduce unnecessary ambiguity, promote productive debate, and highlight risks that require further attention. Drawing on previous Slippery Slope literature and mechanisms of change from range of disciplines, this paper creates a typology of Slippery Slopes for application to stratospheric aerosol injection and other emerging technologies. Initial research can lead to deployment by 1) sparking price-performance improvements and sunk cost biases, 2) contributing to normalisation and legitimisation, 3) altering power structures, 4) sparking hype, and 5) incrementally progressing development. These feedback loops may currently seem unlikely, but unforeseen dynamics could still trigger rapid development and implementation of stratospheric aerosol injection. Conversely, there is no guarantee one of these Slippery Slopes will occur. The point is that they could – the future is too uncertain to fully dismiss non-linear change, particularly for high impact and accessible technologies like stratospheric aerosol injection. This can provide direction and clarity for effective technology governance and Slippery Slope discussion. Furthermore, this typology differentiates the Slippery Slope from lock-in and highlights their interaction points. Slippery Slope dynamics are processes that can (but are not guaranteed to) lead to different types of lock-in. Lock-in is when a technology is entrenched in existing sociotechnical systems. Given the risks of unchecked undesired lock-in, lock-in is a state to be encouraged instead of avoided. 相似文献
A programme of ground-based stratospheric and total NO2 column measurements was instituted at the Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics (40.5° N, 22.9° E) in August 1985. We present here the results of the first two years of measurements with a modified Canterbury filter photometer, details of which are given in the text. The stratospheric NO2 column, obtained at twilight during low local NO2 levels, shows the seasonal variation with monthly mean values of about 6×10-15 molec. cm-2 in the summertime to about 2.2×10-15 molec. cm-2 in the wintertime. These measurements compare well with measurements obtained with different instruments by other groups at similar latitudes (about 40° N) but in different places. Also, the asymmetry of the evening-to-morning stratospheric NO2 over Thessaloniki was found to be on the average equal to 1.58. Total NO2 column over Thessaloniki has a pronounced seasonal variation with amplitude of 0.68 matm. cm which can be explained partly from measured local NO2 sources which discharge in the mixing layer and partly from photolysis of the NO2 reservoir species. 相似文献
Analyses of evolutions of the kinetic and thermal energy associated with the major and minor stratospheric warmings in the winters of 1976–77 and 1975–76 respectively indicate that the predominant ultra-long waves in the stratosphere oscillated at periods of 10–20 days, whereas in the troposphere the predominant long waves oscillated at periods of 8 to 12 days. These tropospheric long waves are almost out-of-phase with the stratospheric ultra-long waves for the minor warming, but in-phase for the major warming. The kinetic energy of the zonal mean flow in the stratosphere for the minor warming is much greater than that for the major warming, indicating that the occurrence of a major warming depends on the magnitude of the kinetic energy of the zonal mean flow relative to that of the meridional convergence of the poleward flux of sensible heat. In both the major and minor warmings, most of the stratospheric eddy kinetic energy is contained in waves of wavenumbers 1 and 2, whereas the stratospheric available potential energy is primarily contained in waves of wavenumber 1. The kinetic energy associated with waves of wavenumber 1 appeared to be 180° out-of-phase with those of wavenumber 2, indicating that nonlinear transfer of kinetic energy occurred between waves of wavenumbers 1 and 2. The occurrences of wind reversals were accompanied by decouplings of the stratospheric and tropospheric motions, and blockings in the troposphere. 相似文献
Using satellite data, the variability of a large number of stratospheric trace constituents can be estimated. These constituents need not themselves be measured by the satellite; their concentrations can be derived using photochemical steady-state relationships. The global coverage provided by the satellite over a long time period means that, for example, monthly zonal mean profiles can be derived. This has been done for H, OH, HO2, H2O2, Cl, ClO, HCl, HOCl, ClONO2, NO and O. The standard deviation of these quantities is a measure of their variability. We argue that comparing theoretical variability estimates with measurements is a better test of a photochemical theory than simply the comparison of single modelled and observed profiles. 相似文献
Discourse analyses and expert interviews about climate engineering (CE) report high levels of reflectivity about the technologies’ risks and challenges, implying that CE experts are unlikely to display moral hazard behaviour, i.e. a reduced focus on mitigation. This has, however, not been empirically tested. Within CE experts we distinguish between experts for radiation management (RM) and for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and analyse whether RM and CDR experts display moral hazard behaviour. For RM experts, we furthermore look at whether they agree to laboratory and field research, and how they perceive the risks and benefits of one specific RM method, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI). Analyzing experts’ preferences for climate-policy options, we do not find a reduction of the mitigation budget, i.e. moral hazard, for RM or CDR experts compared to climate-change experts who are neither experts for RM nor for CDR. In particular, the budget shares earmarked for RM are low. The perceptions of risks and benefits of SAI are similar for RM and climate-change experts. Despite the difference in knowledge and expertise, experts and laypersons share an understanding of the benefits, while their perceptions of the risks differ: experts perceive the risks to be larger.
Key policy insights
Experts surveyed all prioritize mitigation over carbon dioxide removal and in particular radiation management.
In the views of the experts, SAI is not a viable climate policy option within the next 25 years, and potentially beyond, as global field-testing (which would be a precondition for long-term deployment) is widely rejected.
In the case of SAI, greater knowledge leads to increased awareness of the uncertainty and complexity involved. Policy-makers need to be aware of this relationship and the potential misconceptions among laypersons with limited knowledge, and should follow the guidelines about communicating risks and uncertainties of CE that experts have been advised to follow.