Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2: Geographic distribution of participants at the Berkeley workshop.

References

  1. 1

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

  2. 2

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

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

  4. 4

    Winickoff, D. E. & Brown, M. B. Time for a government advisory committee on geoengineering research. Issues Sci. Technol. 29(4) (2013).

  5. 5

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

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

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

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

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739–755 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T. M. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Clim. Change 3, 597–615 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

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

  21. 21

    Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A. & Vaughan, N. Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Clim. Change 3, 451–457 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N. & Vaughan, N. E. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 938–947 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Macnaghten, P. & Szerszynski, B. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Wright, M. J., Teagle, D. A. H. & Feetham, P. M. A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering. Nature Clim. Change 4, 106–110 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Mercer, A. M., Keith, D. W. & Sharp, J. D. Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044006 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Reynolds, J. A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthr. Rev. 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2053019614554304 (2014).

  37. 37

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Keith, D. W., Parson, E. & Morgan, G. M. Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463, 426–427 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Long, J. C. S., Loy, F. & Morgan, M. G. Policy: Start research on climate engineering. Nature 518, 29–31 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Keith, D. W. & Hulme, M. Climate science: Can geoengineering save the world? The Guardian (29 November 2013).

  42. 42

    Lovett, R. Geoengineering won't curb sea-level rise. Nature News http://doi.org/dttd33 (2010).

  43. 43

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Tilmes, S. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

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

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Parson, E. A. & Keith, D. W. End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339, 1278–1279 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

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

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Pielke, R. A. Jr & Sarewitz, D. Bringing society back into the climate debate. Popul. Environ. 26, 255–268 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

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

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54

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

  55. 55

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

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Kniebes, C., Rehdanz, K. & Schmidt, U. Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Climatic Change 130, 299–312 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Authors

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David E. Winickoff.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winickoff, D., Flegal, J. & Asrat, A. Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nature Clim Change 5, 627–634 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2632

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing