Evaluating the efficacy and equity of environmental stopgap measures

Abstract

Contemporary environmental policy is replete with measures that do not fully resolve a problem but are proposed instead to ‘buy time’ for the development of more-durable solutions. We define such measures as ‘stopgap measures’ and examine examples from wildfire risk management, hydrochlorofluorocarbon regulation and Colorado River water management. We introduce an analytical framework to assess stopgaps and apply this framework to solar geoengineering, a controversial stopgap for reducing emissions. Studying stopgaps as a distinct response to environmental crises can help us weigh their merits in comparison to alternative policy and management measures.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

Descriptions of the case studies considered appear in the Supplementary Information. Full materials are available from the corresponding author.

References

  1. 1.

    Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

  2. 2.

    Sato, C. F. & Lindenmeyer, D. B. Meeting the global ecosystem collapse challenge. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12348 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Pielke, R. A. Jr, Prins, G., Rayner, S. & Sarewitz, D. Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445, 597–598 (2007).

  4. 4.

    Schipper, E. L. F. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Law 15, 82–92 (2006).

  5. 5.

    Wilson, K. A. & Law, E. A. Ethics of conservation triage. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, 112 (2016).

  6. 6.

    Holling, C. S. (ed.) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (Wiley, 1978).

  7. 7.

    Walters, C. J. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources (MacMillan, 1986).

  8. 8.

    Lee, K. N. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment (Island Press, 1993).

  9. 9.

    Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

  10. 10.

    Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. & Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of socio-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 30, 441–473 (2005).

  11. 11.

    Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H. & Cosens, B. A. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol. Soc. 19, 56 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Harvey, D. The Limits to Capital (Verso, 2006).

  13. 13.

    Bok, R. ‘By our metaphors you shall know us’: the ‘fix’ of geographical political economy. Prog. Hum. Geog. 43, 1087–1108 (2019).

  14. 14.

    Ekers, M. & Prudham, S. Towards the socio- ecological fix. Env. Plan. A 47, 2438–2445 (2015).

  15. 15.

    Kemp, R. & Rotmans, J. in Towards Environmental Innovation Systems (eds Weber, M. & Hemmelskemp, J.) 33–55 (Springer, 2005).

  16. 16.

    Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. W. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399–417 (2007).

  17. 17.

    Meadowcroft, J. What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sci. 42, 323–340 (2009).

  18. 18.

    Cagle, S. California power shut offs: when your public utility is owned by private investors. The Guardian (12 October 2019); https://go.nature.com/2TtKoXs

  19. 19.

    Roberts, D. 3 key solutions to California’s wildfire safety blackout mess. Vox (22 October 2019); https://go.nature.com/3ao3ZPI

  20. 20.

    McNamara, J. California wildfires and power outages signal long road ahead, but climate ambition sets the right course. Union of Concerned Scientists Blog (1 November 2019); https://go.nature.com/38eHCdO

  21. 21.

    Koran, M. California power outages could cost region more than $2bn, some experts say. The Guardian (11 October 2019); https://go.nature.com/2PIiwxI

  22. 22.

    Swain, D. Fire season continues with dry conditions persisting. The California Weather Blog (18 October 2019); https://weatherwest.com/archives/6912

  23. 23.

    Parson, E. A. Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy (Oxford Univ. Press, 2003).

  24. 24.

    Montreal Protocol Copenhagen Amendment, UN Treaty Collection (UNEP, 2003); https://go.nature.com/38lFe4W

  25. 25.

    Maxwell, J. & Wiener, F. B. There’s money in the air: the CFC ban and Dupont’s regulatory strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 6, 276–286 (1997).

  26. 26.

    James, I. States sign short-term Colorado River drought plan, but global warming looms over long-term solutions. Arizona Republic (20 May 2019); https://go.nature.com/39mMDCv

  27. 27.

    Shepherd, H. Implementing the human right to water in the Colorado River Basin. Willamette L. Rev. 47, 425–466 (2010).

  28. 28.

    Sullivan, A., White, D. D. & Hanemann, M. Designing collaborative governance: Insights from the drought contingency planning process for the lower Colorado River basin. Environ. Sci. Policy 91, 39–49 (2019).

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  31. 31.

    Long, J. C. S. & Shepherd, J. G. in Global Environmental Change. Handbook of Global Environmental Pollution Vol. 1 (ed. Freedman, B.) 757–770 (Springer, 2014); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5784-4_24

  32. 32.

    Asayama, S. & Hulme, M. Engineering climate debt: temperature overshoot and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending. Clim. Policy 19, 937–946 (2019).

  33. 33.

    MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L. & Keith, D. W. Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20160454 (2018).

  34. 34.

    Tilmes, S., Müller, R. & Salawitch, R. The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes. Science 320, 1201–1204 (2008).

  35. 35.

    Visioni, D., Pitari, G., di Genova, G., Tilmes, S. & Cionni, I. Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 14867–14887 (2018).

  36. 36.

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

  37. 37.

    Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).

  38. 38.

    Jones, A. et al. The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 9743–9752 (2013).

  39. 39.

    Kravitz, B. et al. Comparing surface and stratospheric impacts of geoengineering with different SO2 injection strategies. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 7900–7918 (2019).

  40. 40.

    Whyte, K. in Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management (ed. Preston, C. J.) 65–76 (Lexington Books, 2012).

  41. 41.

    McLaren, D. Mitigation deterrence and the ‘moral hazard’ in solar radiation management. Earth’s Future 4, 596–602 (2016).

  42. 42.

    Horton, J. & Keith, D. W. in Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene (ed. Preston, C. J.) 79–92 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).

  43. 43.

    Williamson, P. & Turley, C. Ocean acidification in a geoengineering context. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 4317–4342 (2012).

  44. 44.

    Parson, E. A. & Ernst, L. International governance of climate engineering. Theor. Inq. Law 14, 307–338 (2013).

  45. 45.

    Kravitz, B. et al. First simulations of designing stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering to meet multiple simultaneous climate objectives. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 12616–12634 (2017).

  46. 46.

    Emissions Gap Report 2019. Executive Summary (UNEP, 2019).

  47. 47.

    Hulme, M. Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

  48. 48.

    Geden, O. The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. WIREs Clim. Change 7, 790–797 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Primary funding was supplied by UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability and The Nature Conservancy NatureNet Science Fellows program. B.K. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through agreement CBET-1931641, the Indiana University Environmental Resilience Institute, and the ‘Prepared for Environmental Change’ Grand Challenge initiative. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the US Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. E.A.P. was supported in part by the Open Philanthropy Project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

H.J.B. coordinated the paper. L.J.M. contributed to the organization and writing of the paper. O.G., P.K., L.K., W.K., B.K., J.N., E.A.P., C.J.P., D.L.S., L.S. and S.T. contributed substantially to the development of the framework and its presentation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Holly Jean Buck.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buck, H.J., Martin, L.J., Geden, O. et al. Evaluating the efficacy and equity of environmental stopgap measures. Nat Sustain (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0497-6

Download citation