Perspective

Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research

Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

The Global South is relatively under-represented in public deliberations about solar radiation management (SRM), a controversial climate engineering concept. This Perspective analyses the outputs of a deliberative exercise about SRM, which took place at the University of California-Berkeley and involved 45 mid-career environmental leaders, 39 of whom were from the Global South. This analysis identifies and discusses four themes from the Berkeley workshop that might inform research and governance in this arena: (1) the 'moral hazard' problem should be reframed to emphasize 'moral responsibility'; (2) climate models of SRM deployment may not be credible as primary inputs to policy because they cannot sufficiently address local concerns such as access to water; (3) small outdoor experiments require some form of international public accountability; and (4) inclusion of actors from the Global South will strengthen both SRM research and governance.

  • Subscribe to Nature Climate Change for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    National Research Council Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (National Academies, 2015).

  2. 2.

    in Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (eds Gardiner, S., Caney, S., Jamieson, D. & Shue, H.) 284–315 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  3. 3.

    Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty RS Policy Document 10/09 (Royal Society, 2009).

  4. 4.

    & Time for a government advisory committee on geoengineering research. Issues Sci. Technol. 29(4) (2013).

  5. 5.

    et al. The Oxford Principles. Clim. Change 121, 499–512 (2013).

  6. 6.

    Task Force on Climate Remediation Research Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies (Bipartisan Policy Center, 2011).

  7. 7.

    The Regulation of Geoengineering: Fifth Report of Session 2009–2010 (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010).

  8. 8.

    Geoengineering and the politics of science. Bull. Atom. Sci. 70, 17–26 (2014).

  9. 9.

    Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering (Polity, 2014).

  10. 10.

    & Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 52, 24–37 (2010).

  11. 11.

    & Real-time technology assessment. Technol. Soc. 24, 93–109 (2002).

  12. 12.

    & The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 54, 251–268 (1996).

  13. 13.

    et al. Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now. Clim. Change 121, 567–577 (2013).

  14. 14.

    , & Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse (Springer, 1995).

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    & See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (Demos, 2004).

  17. 17.

    'Opening up' and 'closing down': Power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 33, 262–294 (2007).

  18. 18.

    & Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739–755 (1993).

  19. 19.

    , , & A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Clim. Change 3, 597–615 (2012).

  20. 20.

    Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (Natural Environment Research Council, 2010).

  21. 21.

    , , & Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Clim. Change 3, 451–457 (2013).

  22. 22.

    , , & Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013).

  23. 23.

    & Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 465–474 (2013).

  24. 24.

    , & A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Clim. Change 4, 106–110 (2014).

  25. 25.

    , & Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044006 (2011).

  26. 26.

    Governance of Research on Solar Geoengineering: African Perspectives Consolidated Report of Three Workshops in Senegal, South Africa, and Ethiopia (African Academy of Sciences and SRMGI, 2013).

  27. 27.

    Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research (Environmental Defense Fund, Royal Society and TWAS, 2011).

  28. 28.

    Perspectives on Climate Engineering from Pacific Small Island States IASS Workshop Report (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, 2014).

  29. 29.

    Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Underst. Sci. 1, 281–304 (1992).

  30. 30.

    & The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 32, 235–296 (2002).

  31. 31.

    Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Univ. California Press, 1996).

  32. 32.

    Breaking the expertise barrier: Understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Sci. Public Policy 37, 355–367 (2010).

  33. 33.

    , & Field experiments on solar geoengineering: Report of a workshop exploring a representative research portfolio. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20140175 (2014).

  34. 34.

    & Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13, 3–21 (1990).

  35. 35.

    et al. Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. J. Responsible Innov. 1, 191–199 (2014).

  36. 36.

    A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthr. Rev. 8, (2014).

  37. 37.

    Researching geoengineering: Should not or could not? Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 045104 (2009).

  38. 38.

    , & Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463, 426–427 (2010).

  39. 39.

    & Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the 'moral hazard' argument: An experimental study of UK public perceptions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20140063 (2014).

  40. 40.

    , & Policy: Start research on climate engineering. Nature 518, 29–31 (2015).

  41. 41.

    & Climate science: Can geoengineering save the world? The Guardian (2013 11 29).

  42. 42.

    Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise. Nature News (2010).

  43. 43.

    et al. A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 074013 (2014).

  44. 44.

    et al. The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): The hydrologic impact of geoengineering. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 118, 11036–11058 (2013).

  45. 45.

    & Cooling the Earth through Solar Radiation Management: The Need for Research and an Approach to its Governance (International Risk Governance Council, 2010).

  46. 46.

    & End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339, 1278–1279 (2013).

  47. 47.

    , & Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

  48. 48.

    A Social History of Truth (Univ. Chicago Press, 1994).

  49. 49.

    New civic epistemologies of quantification: Making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 30, 403–432 (2005).

  50. 50.

    Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance 20, 325–357 (2007).

  51. 51.

    & Bringing society back into the climate debate. Popul. Environ. 26, 255–268 (2005).

  52. 52.

    How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 385–403 (2004).

  53. 53.

    Considerations on governance for climate remediation technologies: Lessons from the 'ozone hole'. Stanf. J. Law Sci. Policy 4, 6–9 (2011).

  54. 54.

    Climate Engineering: Technical Status, Future Directions, and Potential Responses (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011).

  55. 55.

    & Public Engagement on Geoengineering Research: Preliminary Report on The SPICE Deliberative Workshops Understanding Risk Working Paper 11–01 (Cardiff University School of Psychology, 2011).

  56. 56.

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

  57. 57.

    , , , & Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Climatic Change 130, 299–312 (2015).

  58. 58.

    Pilot Workshop on Governing Geoengineering in the 21st Century: Asian Perspectives (RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research was supported by the US National Science Foundation (grant 1331256). For their important contributions to the Berkeley workshop, the SRMGI, B. Banerjee, W. Burns, G. Collins and all of the presenters deserve thanks. The 2014 UC Berkeley Beahrs ELP participants and staff were key partners in this project. Thanks to E. Dougherty for his work on the figures.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-3114, USA

    • David E. Winickoff
    •  & Jane A. Flegal
  2. School of Earth Sciences, Addis Ababa University, PO Box 1176 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    • Asfawossen Asrat

Authors

  1. Search for David E. Winickoff in:

  2. Search for Jane A. Flegal in:

  3. Search for Asfawossen Asrat in:

Contributions

D.E.W. contributed study design, writing and editing. J.A.F. contributed data analysis, writing and figures. A.A. contributed writing and editing.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Winickoff.