Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project

Nature Climate Change volume 3, pages 451–457 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Increasing concerns about the narrowing window for averting dangerous climate change have prompted calls for research into geoengineering, alongside dialogue with the public regarding this as a possible response. We report results of the first public engagement study to explore the ethics and acceptability of stratospheric aerosol technology and a proposed field trial (the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) 'pipe and balloon' test bed) of components for an aerosol deployment mechanism. Although almost all of our participants were willing to allow the field trial to proceed, very few were comfortable with using stratospheric aerosols. This Perspective also discusses how these findings were used in a responsible innovation process for the SPICE project initiated by the UK's research councils.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Schematic of the SPICE test-bed proposal.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty Science Policy Centre Report 10/09 (The Royal Society, 2009). Key first review of geoengineering proposals, their possible risks and uncertainties.

  2. Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T. M. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Climatic Change 109, 749–790 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 9949–9954 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research (The Royal Society, 2011).

  5. Rayner, S. et al. The Oxford principles. Climatic Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2 (2013). First proposals for a governance framework for geoengineering research (now widely known as the 'Oxford Principles').

    Google Scholar 

  6. Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions and Potential Responses Report GAO 11–71 (US Government Accountability Office, 2011).

  7. Renn, O., Webler, T. & Wiedemann, P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Kluwer, 1995).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Dietz, T. & Stern, P. (eds) Public Participation in Environmental Risk Assessment and Decision-Making (National Academies, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fiorino, D. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 15, 226–243 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers-Hayden, T. & Pidgeon, N. F. Moving engagement 'upstream'? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering inquiry. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 346–364 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Marris, C. Public views on GMOs: Deconstructing the myths. EMBO Rep. 21, 545–548 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pidgeon, N. F., Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the risks of nanotechnology for energy and health applications in the US and UK. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Burri, R. V. Coping with uncertainty: Assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst. Sci. 18, 498–511 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bhattachary, D., Calitz, J. P. & Hunter, A. Synthetic Biology Dialogue(BBSRC, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stirling, A. Deliberate futures: Precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sustain. Dev. 15, 286–295 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Pidgeon, N. F., Hood, C., Jones, D. K., Turner, B. A. & Gibson, R. in Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management 89–134 (The Royal Society, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Renn, O. in The Social Amplification of Risk (eds Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. K. & Slovic, P.) 374–401 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (NERC, 2010); available at www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf.

  19. Jasanoff, S. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41, 223–244 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rip, A., Misa, T. J. & Schot, J. Managing Technology in Society: The Case of Constructive Technology Assessment (Pinter, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Guston, D. H. & Sarewitz, D. Real-time technology assessment. Technol. Soc. 24, 93–109 (2002). Philosophical discussion of the framework for and purposes of responsible innovation approaches.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Owen, R. & Goldberg, N. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Anal. 30, 1699–1707 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/hose-experiment/spice-opposition-letter/

  24. Corner, A. & Pidgeon. N. F. Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environ: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 52, 24–37 (2010). Summarizes some of the ethical dimensions to geoengineering proposals and elaborates the case for early (upstream) public engagement.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gardiner, S. M. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environ. Value. 20, 163–188 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Macnaghten, P. & Owen, R. Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479, 293 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Corner, A. Pidgeon, N. & Parkhill, K. Perceptions of geoengineering: Public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of 'upstream' engagement. WIREs Clim. Change 3, 451–466 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chilvers, J. Sustainable Participation? Mapping Out and Reflecting upon the Field of Public Dialogue on Science and Technology (Univ. East Anglia & Sciencewise, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P. & Barthe, Y. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy (MIT Press, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pidgeon, N. F. et al. Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4176–4196 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Buck, H. J. Geoengineering: Remaking climate for profit or humanitarian intervention? Dev. Change 43, 253–270 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Macnaghten, P. Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: Narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ. Plann. A 42, 23–37 (2010). Reviews the broad lessons learned from social scientists' study of public dialogue around earlier emerging technologies, many of which are likely to apply to SRM proposals.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Turner, B. A. & Pidgeon, N. F. Man-made Disasters 2nd edn (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Harremoës, P. et al. (eds) Late Lessons From Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1869–2000 Copenhagen (European Environment Agency, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hamilton, C. The Ethical Foundations of Climate Engineering (Australian National Univ., 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Parkhill, K. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on the SPICE Deliberative Workshops Understanding Risk Working Paper 11–01 (Cardiff Univ. School of Psychology, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W. & Simmons, P. Re-framing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 145–169 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nielsen, A. P., Lassen, J. & Sandoe, P. Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic. 20, 13–35 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dryzek, J. S. & Tucker, A. Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France and the United States. Public Admin. Rev. 68, 864–876 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Philbrick, M. & Barandarian, J. The National Citizens' Technology Forum: Lessons for the future. Sci. Public Policy 35, 335–347 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cobb, M. D. Creating informed public opinion: Citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements. J. Nanopart. Res. 13, 1533–1548 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chilvers, J. & Macnaghten, P. The Future of Science Governance: A Review of Public Concerns, Governance and Institutional Response (Univ. East Anglia, Univ. Durham & Sciencewise, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wynne, B. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political-conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 1, 99–110 10.1215/s12280-007-9004-7(2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lezaun, J. & Soneryd, L. Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Underst. Sci. 16, 279–297 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Brown, J. & Isaccs, D. The World Café: Shaping our Future through Conversations that Matter (Berrett-Koehler, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pidgeon, N. F. & Henwood, K. L. in Handbook of Data Analysis (eds Hardy, M. & Bryman, A.) 625–648 (Sage, 2004).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  48. Pidgeon, N. F. & Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Council (EPSRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) project grant (EP/I014721/1). Additional support was provided by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California at Santa Barbara (cooperative agreement SES 0938099) and the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 407/AG). We wish to thank M. Thomas for assistance with the workshops, K. Kuo, H. Hunt and M. Watson of the SPICE project, and the IAGP advisory panel for comments on materials. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Perspective are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EPSRC, NERC or NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Understanding Risk Group, Tyndall Centre and Climate Change Consortium (C3W) of Wales, School of Psychology, Tower Building, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF10 3AT, UK

    Nick Pidgeon, Karen Parkhill & Adam Corner

  2. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    Naomi Vaughan

Authors
  1. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen Parkhill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam Corner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naomi Vaughan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceived by N.P. and A.C. The detailed design and materials were developed by all authors. Data collection was conducted by K.P., N.P. and N.V., and the analysis by K.P. and N.P. N.P. wrote the paper with contributions from all other authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nick Pidgeon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 534 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A. et al. Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Clim Change 3, 451–457 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing