2010 - corner and pidgeon - ge social and ethical implications
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
1/14
GoGG C:
SoC CCoS
by AdA C Ad Ck Pd
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
2/14
The acceptability of
geoengineering will be
determined as much by
social, legal, and political
issues as by scientific
and technical factors1
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
3/14
Preventing dangerous
Climate Change
Anthropogenic climate change is
now a global political priority, and
governmentsacrosstheworldarede-
vising policies aimed at mitigating
greenhousegasemissionsfromhuman
activities.Thisupsurgeinpoliticalac-
tivityreflects theincreasingscientificconsensus that the effect of unmiti-
gated climate change for human and
non-human systems will be over-
whelmingly negative.2 The effects of
acceleratedclimaticchangearealready
beingobservedat thepolar ice caps.3
With theUnited Nations negotiations
in December 2009 in Copenhagen a
focal point for policymakers every-
where,discussionnolongercenterson
whether climate change should be
tackled,buthow. Typically,policiesareaimedatpre-
ventingwhatthe1992UnitedNations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change(UNFCCC)referredtoasdan-
gerousanthropogenicinterferencewith
theclimatesystem.Althoughthereare
significantdifficultiesindefiningwhat
constitutes dangerous climate
change,4astronginternationalconsen-
sushasemergedthatsaysthatprevent-
ing a rise in global temperatures of
morethan twodegreesCelsius abovepre-industrialrevolutionlevelsiscriti-
cal(correspondingtoalevelofcarbon
dioxideintheatmosphereofapproxi-
mately450partspermillion).Beyond
thislevel,feedbackloopsintheclimate
system become increasingly likely
and the threat of relatively rapid and
catastrophic changesbecomessignifi-
cantlygreater.
Unfortunately, the increasing atten-
tionpaidtomitigatingdangerous cli-
matechangehasnotpreventedacon-
tinuing rise in global greenhouse gas
emissions. In fact, emissions are in-
creasing more rapidly than even the
worst case scenario modeled by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change(IPCC),andpredictionsabout
thelikelyeffectsofanthropogenicin-
fluence on the climate have become
increasinglysevere.5Theglobalpopu-
lationcontinuestorise(particularlyin
emergingeconomiessuchasChinaand
India),alongwiththeper-capitaemis-
sionsofmanymillionsofpeople.
Itremainstobeseenwhetherglobal
temperatures will exceed the two-de-
grees limit. But some anthropogenic
climate change has already occurred
(global temperatures have risen by
around0.74degreesCelsiusinthelast
100years)andbecauseoftheinertiain
theclimatesystem,afurtherwarming
ofapproximately0.6degreesCelsiusis
inevitable.6 Thus, thewindow for ef-
fectivelymitigatingagainst a two-de-
greeriseinglobaltemperaturesisex-
tremely narrow, andmanyprominent
membersof theclimate sciencecom-
munityhavebeguntoquestionwhether
preventing a rise in global tempera-
tures of this magnitude (or even
greater)ispossibleusingexistingmiti-
gationapproaches.7Scientistsandpoli-
cymakersareincreasinglyaskingwhat
willhappenifthetwo-degreesguard-
rail is breached, particularly if tem-
peratureincreasesinexcessof twode-
grees lead topositive feedback loops
andfurtheraccelerateclimatechange.
Areexistingmitigationandadaptation
policiesenoughtopreventcatastrophic
changesintheclimatefromoccurring?
In this context, geoengineering the
earthsclimatehasstartedtobeconsid-
ered as a serious candidate for both
mitigatingagainstandadaptingtodan-
gerousclimatechange.
eoengineering
Geoengineeringreferstotheintentional
manipulationof theearths climateto
counteract anthropogenic climate
changeoritswarmingeffects.8Mostof
the technology implicated in geoengi-
neeringproposalshasyetto bedevel-
oped,letalonefieldtested.Somegeo-
engineeringproposalsmayyetturnout
tobelittlemorethanimaginativesci-
encefictionfornow,geoengineering
is at a pre-research and development
phase, with no major research initia-
tivesyetundertaken.Butgeoengineer-
ingis beginningto betakenseriously
byscientists around theworld, includ-
ingtheAmericanMeteorologicalSoci-
etyandtheUKsRoyalSociety.9
Inthemost comprehensive review
ofgeoengineeringsciencetodate,the
Royal Society identified twodistinct
approaches: carbon dioxide removal
(CDR)techniques,whichremoveCO2
fromtheatmosphere,andsolarradia-
tionmanagement (SRM) techniques,
which reflect a small percentage of
the suns light and heat back into
space.10CDRtechniquesincludepro-
posals to imitate trees sequestration
of carbon dioxide from the atmo-
spherebyusinggiantchemicalvents
toscrubtheatmosphere(analogous
to the carbon capture and storage
techniquescurrentlybeingdeveloped
foruseon coal-fired power stations)
andplans tofertilizetheoceansby
usingparticlesofironsulphatetostim-
ulatealgalblooms(whichabsorbcar-
bondioxide).Although notstrictly an
engineeringintervention,majorglobal
reforestationcouldalsobeviewedasa
long-termmethod for CDR. By con-
trast,SRMtechniquesincludesugges-
tionsfor the placement oftrillionsof
tiny sunshades in orbit around the
earth to deflect a percentage of solarradiation,andtheenhancementofma-
rinecloudalbedousingparticlesofsea
salt to deflect sunlight. (See Sidebar,
Proposed Approaches to Geoengi-
neeringforfurthertechnicaldetailon
geoengineeringproposals.)
TheRoyalSocietyreportincludeda
preliminaryassessmentofthetechnical
feasibilityandsafetyofspecificgeoen-
gineeringproposals.Theuncertainties
are considerable, and the potential
risksvaryenormouslyacrossdifferentproposalsfrom concerns that SRM
techniques would do nothing to pre-
vent ocean acidification to fears that
ocean fertilization techniques would
have unpredictable (and undesirable)
ecologicalsideeffects.Moregenerally,
therearesignificantconcernsaboutthe
maskingeffectsofsomegeoengineer-
ing approaches. In particular, SRM
techniquesdonotaddresstheunderly-
ingcausesofclimatechange(i.e.,the
build up of greenhouse gases), and
weresuchaprogramtounexpectedly
fail, a rapid acceleration of warming
mightthenensue.Figure1(reproduced
fromtheRoyal Society report) repre-
sents an initial attempt to evaluate a
numberofgeoengineeringtechniques.
AccordingtotheSocietysanalysis,it
isclearthatthereissubstantialvaria-
tionintheestimatesofthecost,effec-
tiveness, timeliness,and riskof puta-
tivegeoengineeringapproaches.Akey
considerationisthatmanyoftherisks
ofgeoengineeringareatpresenthighly
26 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
4/14
JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 27
uncertain (effectively unknown un-
knowns), making them particularly
difficult to analyze through conven-
tionalriskassessmenttechniques.
TheRoyalSocietyemphasizedthat
noneofthecurrentproposalsforgeo-
engineeringshouldcurrently becon-
sideredasacceptablepolicyresponses
to climate change.However, despite
distancing itself fromthe application
of geoengineering techniques, the
RoyalSocietyrecommendedthat10
million be invested annuallyinto re-
search on their technical feasibility
andsafetyoverthenext10years(in
theUK).Asaresult,theUKResearch
Councilsplantospend3millionon
some preliminary research from late
2010onward.Thus,despitetheobvi-
ouswarinesswithwhichgeoengineer-
ing proposals are treated by some
members of the scientific commu-nity,11researchintothetechnicalfea-
sibilityandphysicalrisksofgeoengi-
neeringispoisedtobegin.
The considerable uncertainty sur-
roundinggeoengineeringisofcourse
notconfinedtoquestionsoftechnical
risk and feasibility. The prospect of
coordinated and large-scale attempts
toengineertheclimateraisesahostof
challenging legal, ethical, and social
questions.Oneofthekeyrecommen-
dations in the Royal Society report
was that a process of dialogue and
engagement to explore public and
civil society attitudes, concerns, and
uncertainties about geoengineering
shouldbeginimmediately.Inthefol-
lowing section, we identify some of
the social and ethical questions that
geoengineering proposals may raise.
We then identify some methods by
whichpublicresponsestotheseques-
tions might be elicited. Finally, and
echoing the Royal Societys senti-
ments, we suggest that beginning aprocessoflegitimateandparticipative
public engagement is essential for
policymakers who are considering
proposals for geoengineering the cli-
mate.Asanissuepotentiallyaffecting
citizens of countries around the
globebothrichandpoordialogue
abouttheprospectofengineeringthe
earthsclimateshouldnotbeconfined
totechnicalorpoliticalelites,norfor
that matter solely to the citizens of
industrializedWesternnations.
The Royal Society has identified two broad types of
geo-engineering proposals. Carbon dioxide removal
(CDR) techniques remove CO2
from the atmosphere,
while solar radiation management (SRM) techniquesreflect a small percentage of the suns light and heat
back into space.
CDR TCq
Chemical air capture and carbn sequestratin: here are a number f
prpsals t imitate trees sequestratin f carbn dixide frm the atm-
sphere by using giant chemical vents t scrub the atmsphere. re
cnventinal carbn capture and strage (CCS) techniques are currently
being develped fr use n cal-fired pwer statins.
ocean fertilizatin: lans t fertilize the ceans by using particles f
irn t stimulate algal blms (which absrb carbn dixide) have already
attracted interest frm cmmercial investrs, but small scale experiments
have thus far been unsuccessful.
Bimass/bichar/bimass with carbn sequestratin (BCS): he use
f bifuels as a substitute fr fssil fuels might nt seem t qualify as
geengineering, but the mass harvesting and sequestratin f bimass
wuld cnstitute a majr climatic interventin.
nhanced weathering: dding silicate materials t sil wuld enhance
weathering prcesses which naturally sequester Co2, while increasing the
levels f alkalinity in the cean wuld have a similar effect.
ffrestatin: arge-scale ecsystem management at a lcal and glbal
level culd prvide significant increases in carbn sinks such as frests.While few undesirable side effects wuld be expected, carbn stred in
vegetatin is nt securely sequestered in the lng term.
RM TCq
Space-based reflectrs: he placement f a fleet f artificial sunshades
in rbit arund the earth wuld deflect slar radiatin. one suggestin is
that a swarm f arund 10 trillin extremely thin discs culd be launched
int space in stacks f a millin, nce every minute, fr abut 30 years.
Stratspheric aersls: Sulphate particles blasted int the strat-
sphere wuld deflect sunlight. Based n the mdel f a vlcan, rapidreductins culd be achieved in earth-bund slar radiatin, but there
are serius cncerns ver unintended effects n the stratspheric
zne.
nhanced surface albed: uman settlements culd be made mre
reflective by painting them white, mre reflective crp varieties and grass-
land culd be planted, and deserts culd be cvered with highly reflective
materials.
nhanced clud albed: he whitening f ceanic cluds culd be
achieved by spraying salt-rich sea water int the skysmetimes referred
t as clud seeding.
Proposed Approaches to Geoengineering
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
5/14
The Social an thical
mplications of
eoengineering
ntentional Manipulation of the
Global Climate
Perhapsthemostfundamentalques-
tion that geoengineering raises is
whethertheintentionalmanipulationof
the global climate is ethically accept-
able.Ontheonehand,fewwoulddis-
agree thata global temperature riseofthreeor four degrees (or evenhigher)
willhavecatastrophicconsequencesfor
bothpeopleandecosystems,providing
an ethical imperative for action if all
otheroptionsarelikelytofail.Thereis
also a long history of anthropogenic
manipulation ormodification ofmany
of the Earths systems (not just the
globalclimate).12Itisclearthathumans
have the capacity to geoengineer and
have done so intentionally on a small
scale and unintentionally on a large
scaleonmanypreviousoccasions:An-
thropogenic interference in the global
climate is precisely the problem that
geoengineeringisdesignedtosolve.
But the intentional large scalema-
nipulationoftheclimatehasnotprevi-
ously been attempted. Thus, it is the
intentionality of geoengineering pro-
posalsthatdemarcatesthemfrompre-
viousanthropogenicinterferenceinthe
global climate. This asymmetry be-
tweenintendedandunintendedactsis
clearly observed in law (most legalsystemsdistinguishcrimesonthebasis
ofintentionality),medicalethics(pas-
sivevs.activeeuthanasia),andmilitary
conduct(theintentionalkillingofcivil-
iansvs.collateraldamageofwar).13
Some commentators have argued
thatthefactthathumanshavealready
causedclimaticchangeispreciselythe
reason why an intentional effort to
undo it should not be initiated.14 On
thisview,theunintendedconsequences
of current human interference in the
climatesystemarea powerful indica-
tion that meddling with the global
climate is inadvisable. Proponents of
geoengineeringcounterthatevennon-
geoengineeringattempts atmitigation
constitute intentional interference in
the climateas efforts to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions of human
activity are aimed at slowing down
(and ultimately reversing) global
warming.15But as several decades of
riskresearchhaveestablished,peoples
perceptionsoftherisksassociatedwithscience and technology are filtered
through social and cultural lenses.16
Thismeansthattheprospectoflarge-
scaletechnologicalmanipulationofthe
atmosphere is likely to produce radi-
callydifferentresponsesfromdifferent
membersofthepublic.Peoplewithop-
posing cultural worldviews tend to
perceiverisksandbenefitsverydiffer-
ently.17Whilesomemayfindthepros-
pectoflarge-scaleengineeringprojects
worrisome,otherswillviewprograms
aimed at changing their consumption
28 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
Figure reprduced with full permissin frm he yal Sciety. Geengineering the Climate: Science, Gvernance and Uncertainty(Science licy Centre eprt 10/09, 2009, p. 49). ach f the geengineering techniques is described in the Sidebar, rpsedppraches t Geengineering.
n additinal dimensin n which geengineering techniques vary is reversibility. While increasing urban surface albed culd quicklybe undne, reversing cean fertilizatin prgrams wuld be mre difficult. he degree t which any particular geengineeing tech-nique culd be halted and reversed might be a critical determinant f hw peple perceive them.
Figure 1. preliminary evaluatin f geengineering techniques reviewed byhe yal Sciety (2009)
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
6/14
JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 29
iStoCkphoto/maroSmarkoviC
Some scientists have proposed carbon dioxide removal systems to address pollutants
emitted by refineries such as this one.
morally unacceptable. While mitiga-
tion through behavior changefor
someclosertoanideaofsocialengi-
neeringand geoengineering may
both technically constitute intentional
interference with the climate, people
areunlikelytoseethecommonality.18
Consent
Ifagreementweretobereachedthat
climate modification was a techni-
callyviableandpoliticallyacceptable
option, whose agreement would be
sought?In theindustrializednations,
thedemocratization(orotherwise)of
science and technology is a topicof
continuinginterest.Asthelargeaca-
demic literature on how to engage
people with science demonstrates,
how and whytoinvolvethepublicin
decisionsabouttheappropriatenessor
acceptability of novel scientific and
technologicaldevelopmentscontinues
to generate debate.19 The U.S. Na-
tionalResearch Council (incommon
withmanyothers)hasarguedthatitis
beneficialfor experts andpolicymak-
ers to involve citizens in discussion
aboutthesocietalaspectsofemerging
areasofscience, technology, andthe
environment using appropriate ana-
lytic-deliberativeprocessesattheear-
liestpossiblestage.20Theprospectof
controlling the global thermostat issomethingthatallcitizenscouldrea-
sonably claim to have a legitimate
stakein.Howwillthepublicsviews
beadequatelyrepresented?
The issue of consent arguably has
more profound implications interna-
tionally. It is well documented that
someofthepoorestpartsoftheworld
(e.g.,Bangladesh,sub-SaharanAfrica,
and the Pacific Island states) will be
disproportionally affected by climate
changeboth because of their re-source-limited capacity to cope with
the changingclimate, and because of
theirlow-lyingordrought-pronegeog-
raphy.Justasthecitizensofdevelop-
ingcountriesdidlittletocontributeto
the adverse effects of the climate
change that they now face, it seems
unlikelythatthepoorestpeopleinthe
poorest countries will be adequately
represented indecisionsabout geoen-
gineering.21Yetperversely,anyadverse
consequences of geoengineering are
likelytobemoredifficulttoaddressin
nations with limited financial re-
sources.Recognizingthisconcern,the
Royal Society recommended that it
wouldbeinadvisabletopursuegeoen-
gineeringmethodsthatwouldhaveef-
fectsextendingbeyondnationalbound-
aries(e.g.,thedeploymentofsulphate
aerosols) before appropriate gover-
nancemechanismswereinplace.The
historyofinternationalclimatenegoti-
ations isof course fraughtwith diffi-
culties, suggesting that in practice,
geo-governance mechanisms will be
difficulttodesignandimplement.
A more mundane issue of consent
arisesfromtheliteratureonpublicat-
titudestowardsnuclearpower.Recent
studies in the UKhave askedpeople
abouttheirviewsonnuclearpower,in
light of the threat posed by climate
change. While outright support and
strongoppositiontonuclearpowerwas
evident, a significant proportion of
participantsofferedareluctantaccep-
tancethat is, they agreed that nu-
clear power (as a potential source of
low-carbonenergy)couldbeaneces-
sary evil in the fight against climate
change.22A key conclusionof the re-
searchwasthatthiswasaconditional,
unstableattitudepositionwithconsid-
erableambivalenceassociatedwiththe
apparent support. In addition, partici-
pants in qualitative discussiongroups
expressedresistancetothepre-framing
of nuclearvs.climate change rather
thannuclearvs.otherenergyoptions
thatmightfightclimatechange.Geo-
engineeringisbeingadvocatedinpre-
cisely thiswayas the lesser of two
evils. If a narrative of inevitability is
usedtoframegeoengineeringwithout
fullyevaluatingitsmeritsagainstother
policy options first, what effect will
thishaveonpublicacceptanceofit?23
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
7/14
Global ecurit & La
Research on geoengineering has its
roots in military strategies developed
for weather modification.24 Both the
United States and Russia expressed
significant interest (and invested sig-
nificantfunds)inresearchingweather
modificationforthepurposesofmili-
tary conflict. However, concern over
thistypeofresearchledtotheEnviron-
mental Modification Convention
(passedbytheUnitedNationsin1977),
banning the use ofweathermodifica-
tion for military orother hostile use.
Some commentators have suggested
that geoengineering proposals might
violatethetermsofthistreaty.25
Whilegeoengineeringsmilitaryhis-
torydoesnotprecludebenevolentuses,
it is clear that climate modification
schemes come with a potential for
global conflict that should be taken
seriously by policymakers. Conflict
mightariseiftheworldviewsanation
pursuing a climate modification pro-
gramasplacingitsowninterestsabovethoseofothernations.Itisevencon-
ceivable that a wealthy individual or
privatecompanymightdevelopgeoen-
gineering technologies. But even if
multi lateral agreement could be
reached, the potential for conflict
wouldremain.Whatif,intheprocess
of improving the climate of its own
country, a government inadvertently
affectedtheclimateofanother?What
ifonenationattributedachangeinits
climatetothegeoengineeringprogram
ofanother,oreveninstigatedacoun-
ter-program (toaddgreenhouse gases
totheatmosphere)ifthegeoengineer-
ingprogramofanothernationwasfelt
toinadvertentlyaffectit?26
Picking apart the climatic effects
that couldbe attributed toa rivalna-
tions geoengineering from those
which would have occurred naturally
would be extremely difficult. The
scopeforconflictevenintheabsence
of intentional provocationwould be
significant. While similar disputes
mightbeenvisioned over the unevendistribution of climatic changes from
unabated greenhouse gas emissions,
the act of geoengineeringmightwell
be consideredmore problematic than
doingnothing.Finally,evenifconflict
could be avoided in the initiation of
geoengineering proposals, significant
questions remain about whether the
worldsnationscouldcreateandmain-
tain the centuries of global political
stabilitythatwouldberequiredtoman-
agesuchindustrialprojectsonaglobalscale.AstheclimatescientistStephen
Schneider succinctly puts it, Just
imagineifweneeded todoallthis in
1900andthentherestofthe20thcen-
turyunfoldedasitactuallydid! 27
Distraction from Mitigation and
the Lure of Techno-Fixes
Thecommercialpotentialofgeoengi-
neering has already attracted interest
fromprivateinvestors,28butinitialre-
searchintogeoengineeringwillalmost
certainly be initiated by government-
funded research councils. Geoengi-
neering proposals will compete with
othermitigationandadaptationstrate-
gies for research investment, which
will raise questions about the alloca-
tionofsparsegovernmentresources.29
Infact,somepressuregroupsthathave
previously been vocal opponents of
stringent political action to reduce
greenhouse gases (such as the Cato
InstituteintheUnitedStates)havein-
dicated theirsupportforgeoengineer-
ing as a cost effective method oftackling climate change.30 Advocates
arguethatthecostofgeoengineering
intermsofgrossdomesticproductis
substantiallylessthanothermitigation
options (althoughtheETCGrouphas
dubbedgeoengineeringtheBigMac
ofclimatechangeresponsesfast,un-
healthy, anddeceptively cheap in the
short term).31 This suggests that as
awareness of geoengineerings poten-
tial grows, some powerful economic
and ideological interests will lobbystrongly for it. At a political level,
therefore, geoengineering might be
considered a dangerous distraction
(withmomentumofitsown)fromthe
taskofmitigationthroughmoretradi-
tional methods of emissions reduc-
tions.TheRoyalSocietyreferstothis
as a moral hazard argumentthe
phenomenonwherebypeoplewhofeel
insured against a risk may take
greater risks (i.e., mitigate less) than
they would otherwise be prepared to
30 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
Tree seedlings being grown for a reforestation project in Africa.
iStoCkphoto/WarWiCkliSter-kaYephotoGraphY
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
8/14
JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 31
take.32 Of course, whether geoengi-
neering will suppress individual and
groupincentivesforaction(oralterna-
tivelygalvanizesomesectionsofsoci-
ety) isan empiricalissue,pointingto
theneedforquitesubtlesocialresearch
on geoengineerings impact on atti-
tudestoclimatechange,aswellasbe-
havioralintentionsandresponses.
Geoengineeringalsodoesnothingto
challenge the systems of production
andconsumptionthatmightbeconsid-
ered unsustainable for reasons other
thanthegreenhousegasemissionsas-
sociatedwith them.For example, the
UK Energy ResearchCenter recently
warned that conventional oil supplies
could peak by 2020 if current con-
sumptiontrendscontinue.33Whilepro-
posals for capturing carbon dioxide
andstoringitundergroundcanmitigate
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, oil
reserveswill continue to be depleted
foraslongasfossilfuelscontinuetobe
burned.Similarly,increasingnumbers
ofcommentatorsandeconomistshave
questionedwhetherthegloballydomi-
nanteconomicmodelofconsumption-
based growth can deliver a truly sus-
tainable society, given that the
decoupling of economic growth and
energy use is typically relative, not
absolute.34 To what extent will the
promise of geoengineeringdetract at-tentionfromthecriticalneedtoestab-
lishmoresustainableconsumptionand
productionpatternsacrosstheglobe?
AstheclimatescientistMikeHulme
hasobserved, questionssuchasthese
shedlightonthedeepideologicaldi-
vides that run through debates about
climatechangeandhowtosolveit.35
For groups and individuals who see
climate change as the symptom of a
socialandeconomicorderthatisinher-
ently unsustainable, geoengineeringrepresentstheworstkindoftechno-fix.
Thesepeoplemaydesiresocialchange
independent from concern about cli-
mate changeand are thus likely to
viewproposalsthatdonotaddressex-
istinginequalitiesbetweennationsand
peoples with suspicion. Conversely,
those who place faith in the human
capacityforfindingtechnologicalsolu-
tionstoenvironmentalandotherprob-
lemsmightwellseegeoengineeringas
a genuine opportunity rather than a
threat.Here,deeplyheldandculturally
ingrained narratives regarding human
dominance over (or conversely inter-
connectedness with) nature are likely
toplayarole.
As knowledge of geoengineering
proposals proliferates, the metaphors
that emerge in the public discourse
(andhowtheyrelatetodifferentunder-
lyingpoliticalandenvironmental ide-
ologies) will be telling. The recently
completed European nanotechnology
project DEEPEN36 found that among
discussiongroupsintheUKandPortu-
gal, five key narratives characterized
participantsresponsestonanotechnol-
ogy:1)becarefulwhatyouwishfor;
2)openingPandorasbox;3)mess-
ingwithnature;4)keptinthedark;
and5)therichgetricherandthepoor
get poorer. Interestingly, the techno-
scientificvisionoftechnologyasdriv-
ing inexorably forward and bringing
inevitablesocialbenefitstendedtobe
rejected. These narratives resonate
withthesortsofresponsesthatmight
be expected towards geoengineering,
andsuggestthatthereareclearparal-
lelsbetweenthesetwoemergingareas
of science and technology (a theme
that we develop in more detail be-
low).36
nintended Conseuences
Concerns about whether scientists
and engineers have the capacity to
safelymitigate theunintended techni-
calandenvironmentalconsequencesof
geoengineeringwillplayacentralrole
in the debate. But the issue of unin-
tendedconsequencesalsohas anum-
berofsocialdimensions.Forexample,
historyshowsusthatcomplextechni-
cal and environmental systems often
fail because of unanticipated interac-
tions between their component parts,
while the processes of societal over-
sighttypicallyareinsufficientlysensi-
tivetoemergingwarningsigns.37Inan
analysisthatbroadlysupportspursuing
geoengineeringresearch,JamesLove-
lockquestionedwhetherhumansociet-
iesaresufficientlytalentedtotakeon
theroleofpermanentlyregulatingthe
global thermostat: Consider what
might happen ifwe start by using a
stratospheric aerosol to ameliorate
global heating; even if it succeeds, it
wouldnotbelongbeforewefacethe
additionalproblemofoceanacidifica-
tion. This would need another medi-
cine, and so on.We could find our-
selves in a Kafka-like world from
whichthereisnoescape.38
Lovelocks Kafka-like world is
purposefully dramatic. But the notion
thatembarkingonacourseofgeoengi-
neeringcouldresultinperpetualtech-
nologicaltreatmentsfor theclimate
systemisonethatshouldbetakenseri-
ously.Asidefromthemoralquestions
itraisesaboutwhatthissortofsociety
andglobalenvironmentwouldbelike,
anincreasinglytechnologicallysophis-
ticated future may not be something
that can be taken for granted. Rapid
technologicalprogresssincetheindus-
trial revolution has been inextricablylinkedtotheavailabilityofcheapand
plentiful fossil fuels.Will a post-car-
bonenergyfuturebesimilarlycatalytic
indrivingtechnologicalinnovation?
Theethicalandsocialquestionswe
haveidentifiedarenotintendedtobe
anexhaustivelist,andneitherarethey
predictions about the likely trajectory
ofpublic andethicalopinion towards
geoengineering. Inevitably, in focus-
singonthedisputesthatgeoengineer-
ingmightraise,wehavenotdiscussed
While proposals for capturing caron ioxie
an storing it unergroun can
mitigate levels of C2
in the atmosphere,
oil reserves will continue to e eplete
for as long as fossil fuels
continue to e urne.
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
9/14
indetailthebenefitsthatproponentsof
geoengineering research foresee. The
worst effects of geoengineering may
paleincomparisontothethreatsposed
by insufficiently mitigated climate
change.And,if atsomecriticaljunc-
ture in the future the survival of the
humanracedependedonourabilityto
geoengineeraclimatesolution,propo-
nentsofgeoengineeringresearchargue
that it would be better ifwe had al-
readydonethefundamentalresearch.39
Thepromiseofabenignlycontrolled
climatemaybeappealingtosome,al-
though most see geoengineeringas a
contingencyplanabackupincaseall
elsefails.Butevenproponentsofgeo-
engineering research urge caution in
pursuingsucharadicalagendabecause
thesocialandethicalissuesatstakeare
substantial.Inthenextsection,weout-
linesomepossiblemethodsforbegin-
ningaprocessofupstreamengagement
withmembersofthepublic.Bydraw-
ingonrelevantpublicengagementre-
search on another emerging area of
sciencenanotechnologyweseekto
identify ways to establish a dialogue
with society at large thatmay, if ap-
proachedopen-mindedly,provideale-
gitimatemethodforaddressingbroader
questionsaboutgeoengineering.
nvolving Citizens arl in
deate: The Challenge of
Upstream Pulic ngagement
Public engagement is typically
poorly specified.40 From purely com-
municativeprojectsaimed at improv-
ing lay knowledge in some way, to
consultation processes that might be
more accurately described as marketresearch,to large-scaleanalytic-delib-
erative processes involving both lay
andexpertparticipantstheconceptof
publicengagement isbroadandnego-
tiable.Debateoverthebestwaytoin-
volvemembersof the public indeci-
sionsrelatedtoscienceandtechnology
has taken place for over a decade.41
Earlydiscussionscentered around the
deficit model of science communica-
tion, which assumed that the public
hadadeficitofknowledgethatneededto be addressed through engagement.
But the deficit hypothesis has been
discredited by both theoretical ad-
vances and empirical data. From a
theoretical perspective, assuming a
deficitofknowledgeisnotconducive
to establishing a genuinely participa-
tory interaction between scientists,
communicators,and thebroader pub-
lic.Andfromanempiricalperspective,
studies have consistently shown that
peoplesperceptionandacceptanceofscienceandtechnologyisnotstraight-
forwardlyattributabletotheirlevelof
knowledgeaboutit.42Therejectionof
thedeficitmodelofsciencecommuni-
cationhasbeenaccompaniedbyacon-
certedefforttodevelopmoredelibera-
tive public engagement mechanisms,
andtomovetheiruseupstreaminthe
research and development process. A
technology is upstream if significant
research and development has not yet
begun, public controversy about the
topic isnotcurrentlypresent, and en-
trenched attitudesor socialrepresenta-
tions have not yet been established
(criteria that seem to fit geoengineer-
ings current position). Upstream en-
gagementmeansencouragingthepublic
toplayanactiveroleindeliberatinga
scientificortechnologicalissuethrough-
out the entireprocess of scientific re-
search and development, and particu-
larly before significant commercial
realizationhastakenplace. 43
32 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
DRCT PLC GAGMT
Citizens juries, panels, fcus grups, and deliberative wrkshps
can allw significant ethical cncerns t be identified and desired
futures t be discussed. We argue that an internatinal prcess f
direct engagement with the public n geengineering shuld be
initiated immediatelyideally prir t the cmmencement f a
physical research prgram.
CAR AALy wT TAkLDR
dentifying different directins that a new technlgy might take canhelp t identify significant uncertainties. apping ut sme pssible
trajectries fr geengineering might permit sme f the ethical is-
sues we identify t cme t the frefrnt.
DC AALyTC MTD
ecisin analytic methds cnsist f wrking with stakehlders r
the public t identify the frames and values that are ultimately neces-
sary fr characterizing risks. Geengineering is likely t be framed
using an initial narrative f necessity r inevitability. What effect will
this have n judgments? Can alternative decisin structures be iden-
tified?
MLTTAG MTD
ultistage methds cmbine different appraches t framing
and risk assessment in a sequence f linked activities, ften with
different grups f stakehlders and the public, and at different
times. t seems likely that multistage and multi-audience methds
will be necessary t establish a legitimate prcess f interna-
tinal engagement n geengineering.
ome Approaches to upstream
ngagement
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
10/14
JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 33
Successful upstream engagement
requiresfindingnewwaysoflistening
toandvaluingdiverseformsofpublic
knowledge and social intelligence,
andinvolvingthepublicinmorefun-
damentalquestionsaboutthepaceand
direction of science and technology
(and the wider values that inform
this).Manyauthorshaveissuedcalls
for the social scientific (as well as
technical)aspectsofnewtechnologies
tobe addressedearlyand simultane-
ously, rather than simply allocating
the impacts or societal effects of a
newtechnologytothesocialsciences
toassesspost hoc.44Onthisview,so-
cialandethicalassessmentsofanew
technologymustoccurinrealtimein
ordertoaddressdeepersocialandpo-
liticalquestions aboutpurpose, own-
ership, control, and responsibility:
Whatisadevelopmentfor,whatisthe
need,who owns it,andwhowill be
responsibleifthingsgowrong?Allof
thesequestionsseemespeciallyperti-
nent for anyfutureproposalsto geo-
engineertheclimate.
Interest in upstream engagement in
Europecanbepartlyattributedtothe
widelyheldperceptionthatpublicen-
gagement over genetically modified
organisms(GMOs)cametoolate,and
resultedinsomethingofabacklash. 45
Thelessonslearnedandtheapproaches
usedinprojectssuchastheBritishGM
Nationpublicdebatein 2003have in-
formedmuchoftheresearchandprac-
tice in Europe that has followed it.46
Butmostofthediscussionovermeth-
ods of upstream engagement has re-
latedtocurrentlyupstreamtopics(for
example, nanotechnology, hydrogen
energytechnologies,andsyntheticbi-
ology). TeeRogers-HaydenandNick
Pidgeonhavereferredtonanotechnol-
ogythe manufacture of nanoscale
structuresanddevicesthathavenovel
chemicalandelectricalpropertiesas
thetestcaseforupstreamengagement.
A number of engagement mecha-
nisms,andtheirpotentialforupstream
engagement on geoengineering are
outlined in the Sidebar, SomeAp-
proachestoUpstreamEngagement.47
Severalmethodsemergeaspromising
waystodevelopanupstreamdialogue
withthepublic,andwefocushereon
theuseofcitizensjuriesanddelibera-
tiveworkshops.48
Citizensjuriesareaforumforpub-
lic debate and discussion, and are
basedonthemodelofalegaljury(and
are related to the consensus confer-
ence models used in Australia and
Scandinavian countries).49 They are
semi-structured and participatory ses-
sions,wherearepresentativegroupof
thepublicisaskedtoconsideraseriesof questions relating to a particular
topic.The jury has the opportunity to
question witnesses (experts in the
field)andareaskedtoreachaverdict.
Inthisway,thesessionsareguidedby
the concernsand interests of the par-
ticipants,ratherthansolelydetermined
by the researcher. NanoJuryUK (held
inWestYorkshire overfiveweeks in
the summer of 2005) proved to be a
usefulmethod to elicitpublicevalua-
tions of nanotechnologysomethingthatisscientificallycomplex,difficult
tovisualize,and difficult to represent
psychologically.50 Although partici-
pantsinitiallystruggledwiththetopic,
itsultimatesuccesssuggeststhatitisa
methodology that might conceivably
leadtosubstantivepublicengagement
with the social and ethical questions
thatgeoengineeringraises.
In addition to citizens juries, up-
stream deliberative workshops have
been trialled using members of the
BritishandAmericanpublic.Usingthe
deliberative workshop format, quasi-
representative groups of the public
from the United Kingdom and the
UnitedStateswereconvenedtodebate
nanotechnology. 51 The groups dis-
cussedtherisksandbenefitsofspecific
nanotechnology applications using a
combinationofWorldCafdiscussion
sessionsandwrittenmaterialstodraw
on. Interestingly, a firm conclusion(echoingthefindingsoftheDEEPEN
projectdescribedearlier)was that the
social trumped the technical in peo-
ples discussion of riskthat is, dis-
cussionsfocusedpredominantlyonthe
socialandethicalimplicationsofnano-
technology, rather than questions of
physicalrisk(despite thegroupsbeing
providedwithinformationaboutphysi-
cal risks).A key question iswhether
suchdeliberativeworkshopswillbean
effectivemethodofupstreamengage-mentongeoengineering(wheresocial
and ethical questionsare likely tobe
pertinent).They seemto providea fo-
rumforpreciselythetypeofnontech-
nicalconcernsthattraditionalriskas-
sessment approaches to analysis
struggletocapture.
Ourargumentis that theupstream
public engagement tools that have
been developed for studying nano-
technologymayalso be usefullyap-
pliedtoassesspeoplesperceptionsof
iStoCkphoto/ktSimaGe
Reduced sea ice thickness is just one of the many signs of global climate change.
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
11/14
thesocialandethicalimplicationsof
geoengineering.Itwillnotbeaneasy
challenge tomeet. Relocating public
debate about geoengineering to an
earlier point in its developmentwill
notaddressthegenericdifficultiesof
public engagementwho should par-
ticipate, the efficacy of different ap-
proaches,theclarificationofaimsand
theneedtoensuretheresultsofany
engagement exercise are taken on
board by decision-makers, aswell as
themeansforlocatingdialoguewithin
existing modes of democratic and
public representation. Equally, up-
streamengagementbringsarangeof
uniqueissuesrelatingtothedesignof
participatoryexercises. In thecaseof
nanotechnologies,theveryabsenceof
products andeasyeverydayanalogies
through which people can interpret
thesciencemeanstheyoftenstruggle
(initiallyatleast)togetagriponthe
topic.Inturn,thismeansthatengage-
ment mechanisms require at least
some level of information provision
abouttheissue,raisingthequestionof
how this information is framed and
presentedbythedialogueorganizers.
Many attempts at upstream public
engagementsufferfromtwoproblems:
a profoundambivalenceonbehalf of
the public, and a general cynicism
about whether the results of engage-mentexercises aretaken seriouslyby
decision-makers and stakeholders.52
Decision-makersmustbecarefulnotto
useupstreampublicengagementasan
opportunitytogetinearlywithpro-
geoengineering public relations cam-
paigns,butevenmoreimportantly,ev-
eryeffortmustbemadetomakepublic
engagement opportunitiesavailableto
asmanypeople(andasmanydifferent
typesofpeople)aspossible.
The recent World Wide Views onGlobalWarmingprojectrepresentsan
attempt to pursue public engagement
onaglobalscale.53Theprojectwasa
global citizen consultation that took
place on September 26, 2009 in 38
countries, involving 4,400 citizens.
Eachdeliberationincludedaround100
participants, whowere selected to be
demographicallyrepresentativeforthe
region.Participants discussedand de-
batedviewsonthe policygoalsofthe
UnitedNationsClimateChangeNego-
tiations in Copenhagen.While 4,400
peoplestillrepresentatinyminorityof
theworldwidepopulation, theproject
suggeststhatpublicparticipationproj-
ectsneednot (and should not)bere-
strictedtothecitizensofindustrialized,
Westernnations.
Conclusion Researchintothetechnicalfeasibil-
ity and safety of geoengineering is
poisedtobegin,withguardedinterest
from research funders, governments,
and academic bodies in the United
StatesandEurope.Wehavearguedthat
itisessentialthataprogramofsocial
researchandreflectionbe initiatedas
well, prior to the physical program.
Thedeliberative techniques thathave
been trialled in researchonnanotech-
nologyofferpotentialopportunitiesfor
meaningfulpublicengagement.54Even
under conditions of high uncertainty
that characterize emerging technolo-
gies such as geoengineering (some-
thing the philosophers Jerry Ravetz
and Silvio Funtowicz have termed
post-normal science),55 upstream de-
liberativemethods can play a critical
role in allowing a broader range of
voicestobeheardandinextendingthe
dialoguebetweenexpertsandsociety.
Butwhileitisrelativelystraightfor-
wardtoelicitviewsandopinionsfrom
membersof thepublic, ensuring that
theseviews are givenweightand le-
gitimacybydecision-makersisama-
jorundertaking.There is, therefore,a
significant challenge for public en-
gagement researchers and policy-
makerstodevelopagenuinelypartici-
34 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
iStoCkphoto/ktSimaGe
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
12/14
JAnUAry/FEBrUAry 201o WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG EnvironmEnt 35
pative model of upstream public
engagement around geoengineering
thatdoesmorethansimplymovecon-
sultationprocessestoanearlierphase
inthetechnologysdevelopment.Pub-
lic engagementmust be initiated be-
fore the scientific community begins
toinvestigatethepotentialofgeoengi-
neering, precisely because the social
andethicalquestionsthatgeoengineer-
ingraiseswillbemuchmoredifficult
toaddress ina satisfactorywayonce
large-scale research is underway. If
experimentsaretobeconductedwith
geoengineeringatthelevelrequiredto
adequatelyassessitsimpactsthatis,
real-world experiments with the
worlds climatethe opportunity to
engage thepublic inmeaningful dia-
loguemay have already passed. The
needforupstreamengagementongeo-
engineeringis,therefore,pressing.
Encouragingly, the Royal Society
reportincludedapreliminaryinvesti-
gation of public attitudes towards
geoengineering.56Focusgroupscom-
posed of participants with different
environmental beliefs and behaviors
discussedpossiblerisks,benefits,and
uncertainties of different geoengi-
neering technologies. Perceptions of
geoengineeringweregenerallynega-
tive,with concernovervested com-
mercial interests, environmental im-pact, and transparency of regulation
(this can be contrasted with general
views about nanotechnology, which
havetendedtobebroadlypositive)57.
However,therewasalsoasuggestion
that geoengineering proposals might
galvanize (rather than distract from)
mitigationstrategiesseveralpartici-
pants who were generally sceptical
towards climate change perceived
government investment in geoengi-
neering research as a reason for in-creasedpersonalengagement.
Ofcourse,upstreamengagementon
geoengineeringisnotjustaboutalert-
ingthepublictorisksanddangersthey
mightotherwisenot beaware of; ad-
dressing the ethical and social ques-
tions that geoengineering raises may
actually increase the likelihood of a
technical program beginning. This is
notbecauseupstream engagementof-
fersanearlyopportunitytoallayfears,
but becauseprevious experiencewith
biotechnology has suggested, for ex-
ample, that failing to effectively en-
gagethepublicledtoGMfoodbecom-
inganiconictopicforbroaderpolitical
debateandcontroversy. 58Engagement
exercisesshouldnotaimtostymiere-
searchorlimitacademicfreedom,but
toenrichsocietaldebateandthedeci-
sion-makingprocess.Agoodexample
ofthisisarecentBritishdialoguewith
membersofthepublicabouttheuseof
nanotechnologies in healthcare. As
wellas identifyingpositiveand nega-
tive perceptions of the role of nano-
technologiesinhealth,theprocesspro-
vided valuable input that aided the
developmentoftheresearchprogram.59
Upstreamengagementwiththepub-
licmayalsosimplyleadtoneitherac-
ceptance nor rejection. Some recent
studiesofpublicattitudestowardsnan-
otechnology have suggestedthat peo-
plewithopposingviewsofscienceand
technology tend to polarize the more
theyknowabouttherisksandbenefits
of nanotechnology.60 Different ap-
proaches to geoengineeringmay also
raise different social and ethical is-
suesthe question of international
consent is arguably less pressing for
localisedsequestrationmethodsthanit
is for the use of stratospheric aero-
sols.61 But whatever the outcome of
involving the public in a discourseabout the questions thatgeoengineer-
ingraises,beginningthisprocessatthe
earliestpossiblestageseemsessential.
Genuinelyupstream research anden-
gagementasksnot onlywhat the im-
pacts of a particular new program of
technological innovation will be, but
whether that program is desirable in
thefirstplace.
Theseconcernsmake clear that up-
streamengagementisunlikelytobea
panacea for deeply ingrained tensionsbetweenscienceandbroadersociety.In
fact,thesignificantpracticalchallenges
ofimplementinganambitiousprogram
ofglobalupstreamengagementongeo-
engineeringhighlighttheissuesassoci-
ated with global risk assessment, en-
gagement, and governance more
generally.Asdemonstratedbyanalyses
oftheinternationalriskgovernanceof
nanotechnology,increasingtechnologi-
calglobalizationisnotalwaysmatched
byacorrespondingconvergenceofrisk
assessmentandgovernance.62Geoengi-
neeringproposalswouldseemtospeak
directly to the environmental cam-
paignerGeorgeMonbiotsconcernthat
everything has been globalizedex-
ceptourconsent.63Anylegitimatepro-
cessofpublicengagementongeoengi-neeringwillneedtofighthardtoreach
asbroadagroupofcitizensaspossible
(possiblyincludingmultistageandmul-
timethod approachessee Sidebar,
Some Approaches to Upstream En-
gagement). Initiatingan international
programofsocialandethicalresearch
beforemakingadecisionaboutwhether
to commence a technical program on
geoegineeringisonewaytoensurethat
thisgoalisachieved.
In assessing the potential for up-streamengagement inlightof lessons
learned from the debates over GM
food,SheilaJasanoffhassuggestedthat
the hidden normative presumptions
ofscienceneededtoberevealedinor-
der forgenuinely participatory public
engagementtoensue.64Bybeingwill-
ingtosubjectthecentraltenetofpost-
Enlightenmentscience(afirmconvic-
tion in the positive valueofscientific
andtechnologicalprogress)toanopen-
ended debateinvolving a broad range
ofmembersofthepublic,Jasanoffpro-
poses thatupstreamengagementcould
mitigateagainstadivisionbetweensci-
enceandsociety.Itisourhopethata
comprehensive strategy of upstream
public engagement on geoengineering
canachieveasimilargoal.
Acnowlegements
Preparation of this article was sup-
ported primarily through grants from
the Economic and Social Research
ngagement exercises
shoul not aim to
stmie research or
limit acaemic
freeom, ut to enrich
societal eate anthe ecision-maing
process.
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
13/14
1. TheRoyal Society,Geoengineering the Cli-
mate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty(Science
PolicyCentreReport10/09,2009),ix.
2. IPCC,Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC,2007).
3.N.P.TobergandP.Wadhams,Verication of
Catlin Arctic Survey Surface Observation Techniques
(UniversityofCambridge,UK:PolarOceanPhysics
Group,October2009);ACIA,Impacts of a Warming
ClimateArctic Climate Impact Assessment: Synthe-
sis Report (Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity
Press,2005).
4.M.Hulme,Why We Disagree About Climate
Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and
Opportunity(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity
Press,2009);I.Lorenzoni,N.F.Pidgeon,andR.E.
OConnor, DangerousClimateChange:The Role
forRiskResearch,RiskAnalysis25,no 6(2005):
12871398;M.Oppenheimer,DeningDangerous
AnthropogenicInterference:TheRoleofScience,theLimitsofScience,RiskAnalysis25,no.6(2005):
13991407.
5.J.G.Canadell,C.LeQuere,M.R.Raupach,C.
B.Field,E.T.Buitenhuis,P.Ciais,T.J.Conway,N.
P.Gillett,R.A.Houghton,and G.Marland,Con-
tributionstoAcceleratingAtmosphericCO2Growth
fromEconomicActivity,CarbonIntensity,andEf-
ciencyofNaturalSinks,PNAS104,no.47(2007):
1886618870; W. T. Pfeffer, J.T. Harper, and S.
ONeel,KinematicConstraintsonGlacierContribu-
tionsto21st-CenturySea-LevelRise,Science321
(2008):13401343.
6.J. Hansen, Earths Energy Imbalance: Con-
rmation and Implications, Science, 308 (2005):
14311435.
7.Uncorrectedtranscriptoforalevidencetothe
Environmental Audit Committee of the House of
LordsbyKevinAnderson,http://www.publications.
parl iament.uk/pa /cm200809/cmselect /cmenvaud/
uc616-ii/uc61602.htm(accessed20July2009).
8.Whileourfocushereisongeoengineeringas
aresponsetoclimatechange,thetermhasalsobeen
usedmorebroadlytodescribethealterationofthe
earths environment for other purposes. For infor-
mation on thehistoryof geoengineering,see J.R.
Fleming,TheClimateEngineers,Wilson Quarterly
Spring(2007):4560.
9.AmericanMeteorologicalSociety.AMS Policy
Statement on Geoengineering the Climate System.
(AdoptedbytheAMSCouncilon20July2009);The
RoyalSociety,note1;J.J.Blackstock,D.S.Battisti,
K.Caldeira,D.M.Eardley,J.I.Katz,D.W.Keith,A.
A.N.PatrinosetalClimate Engineering Responses
to Climate Emergencies (Santa Barbara: Novim,
2009)
10.RoyalSociety,note1;althoughseealsoS.H.
Schneider, Geoengineering: Could We or Should
WeMakeItWork?Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society(A)366(2008):38433862.
11.Membersofthescienticcommunityareof
coursenomorelikelytospeakwithasinglevoiceongeoengineeringthanmembersofthepublic.
12. J.Lovelock,AGeophysiologistsThoughts
onGeoengineering.Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society (A)366(2008):38833890.
13.D.Jamieson,EthicsandIntentionalClimate
Change,Climatic Change33(1999):323336.
14. ETC Group, Gambling with Gaia, ETC
GroupCommunique93(Ottawa:ETCGroup,2007)
15.J.Lovelock,note12.
16.N.Pidgeon,R.E.Kasperson,andP.Slovic,
The Social Amplication of Risk (Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniversityPress,2003).
17.M.Hulme,seenote4.
18.Ibid.
19.H.M.CollinsandR.Evans,Rethinking Exper-
tise (Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,2007);
A. Irwin and B. Wynne, Eds.,MisunderstandingScience? The Public Reconstruction of Science and
Technology(Cambridge,MA:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1997); D. J. Fiorino, Citizen Participation
andEnvironmentalRisk:A Survey of Institutional
Mechanisms,Science, Technology & Human Values
15 (1990): 226243;R.Flynn,P.Bellaby, andM.
Ricci,The Limitsof UpstreamEngagement:Citi-
zensPanelsandDeliberationoverHydrogenEnergy
Technologies, Paper presented at the Society for
RiskAnalysisConference:Karlstad,Sweden,2009;
G.RoweandL.Frewer,ATypologyofPublicEn-
gagementMechanisms,Science, Technology & Hu-
man Values30(2005):251289.
20.T.DietzandP.C.Stern,Eds.,Public Partici-
pation in Environmental Assessment and Decision
Making(NationalResearchCouncil,NationalAcad-
emies Press: Washington, DC, 2008); P. C. Stern
andH.V.Fineberg,Understanding Risk: Informing
Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Re-
searchCouncilCommitteeonRiskCharacterization:
Washington,DC,1996);M.Leach,I.Scoones,and
B.Wynne,Eds.,Science and Citizens: Globalization
and the Challenges of Engagement (London: Zed
Books,2005);R.Flynnetal,note19.
21.W.N.Adger,J.Paavola, S.Huq,andM.J.
Mace,Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change
(Massachusetts:MITPress,2006).
22.K.Bickerstaff,I.Lorenzoni,N.F.Pidgeon,W.
Poortinga, and P. Simmons, Re-Framing Nuclear
Power inthe UK Energy Debate: Nuclear Power,
ClimateChangeMitigationandRadioactiveWaste,
Public Understanding of Science 17 (2008): 145
169;N.F.Pidgeon,I.Lorenzoni,andW.Poortinga,
ClimateChangeorNuclearPowerNoThanks!A
Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions andRisk
FraminginBritain, Global Environmental Change
18(2008):6985.
23. Steve Gardiner has also noted that geoen-
gineeringis oftenpresented as an argumentfrom
emergency,withtheimplicationbeingthatnothing
(i.e.,geoengineering)couldbeasbadasunmitigatedclimate change. S. Gardiner, Is Geoengineering
the Lesser Evil?Accessed 02/10/09 http://environ
mentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/27600
(accessed2ndOctober2009).
24.J.R.Fleming,note8;ETCGroup,note14;A.
Robock,20ReasonsWhyGeoengineeringMayBe
aBadIdea,Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists64,no.
2(2008):1418;S.Weart,The Discovery of Global
Warming, http://aip.org/history/climate (accessed
20thJuly2009).
25.M.C.MacCracken,Geoengineering:Worthy
ofCautiousEvaluation,Climatic Change77(2006):
235243.
26.J.J.Blackstocketal.,note9;D.G.Victor,On
theRegulationofGeoengineering,Oxford Review of
Economic Policy24,No.2(2008):322336.
27.S.H.Schneider,note10,p.3857. 28.TheETCGroup(seenote14)reportsthatthe
followingironfertilizationresearchwassupportedby
private investors:P.W.Boyd,T.Jickells, C.S.Law,
S.Blain,E.A.Boyle,K.O.Buesseleretal. AMe-
soscalePhytoplanktonBloominthePolarSouthern
OceanStimulatedbyIronFertilization,Nature407
(2000):695702.
29.D.Jameison,note12.
30.A.Steffen,GeoengineeringandtheNewCli-
mate Denialism, http://www.worldchanging.com/
archives/009784.html(accessed20October2009).
31. B.Lomborg, GlobalWarmings CheapEf-
fective Solution, http://www.project-syndicate.org/
commentary/lomborg43/English (accessed 20 Octo-
ber2009);J.E.Bickell&L.Lane,An Analysis of Cli-
mate Engineering as a Response to Climate Change
(Copenhagen Consensus Centre: Denmark, 2009);
ETCGroup,TheEmperorsNewClimate:Geoengi-
neeringas21stCenturyFairytale,ETCGroupSpe-
cialReport(Ottawa:ETCGroup,August2009).
32.TheRoyalSociety,note1,p.37.
33.S.Sorrell,J.Speirs,R.Bentley,A.Brandt,and
R.Miller,An Assessment of the Evidence for a Near-
Term Peak in Global Oil Production(London:UK
EnergyResearchCentre,2009).
34.T.Jackson,Prosperity Without growth? The
Transition to a Sustainable Economy (London:
Sustainable Development Commission, 2009); N.
PidgeonandC.Butler.RiskAnalysisandClimate
Change,Environmental Politics 18, no. 5(2009):
670688.
35.M.Hulme,note4.
36. S. Davies,P.Macnaghten,andM.Kearnes,
Reconguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public
Policy, Part I of the report onDeepening Debate
36 EnvironmEnt WWW.EnvironmEntmAGAZinE.orG voLUmE 52 nUmBEr 1
notES
Council (RES-066-27-00013) toNick
Pidgeon, and from the U.S. National
Science Foundation (Grant No.
0531184)totheCentreforNanotech-
nologyinSociety,UniversityofCali-
fornia,SantaBarbara.Additionalsup-
portwasprovidedby theLeverhulme
Trust(F/00407/AG)totheProgramon
Understanding Risk. The authorswouldliketothankMikeHulme,Steve
Rayner,Tim Kruger,Tim ORiordan,
ChristopherBunting,andAnthonyLei-
serowitzforhelpfulcommentsonear-
lierdraftsofthisarticle,andtheedito-
rialteamatEnvironment.
ADAMCORNERisaresearchassociateintheSchool
of Psychology at Cardiff University. His research
looksathowpeopleevaluatescientificargumentsandevidence,thecommunicationofclimatechange,and
thepublicunderstandingofemergingareasofscience.
NICK PIDGEON is a professor at the School of
Psychology, Cardiff University, and Director of
theUnderstandingRiskresearchgroupatCardiff
(www.understanding-risk.org). He conducts in-
terdisciplinaryresearchon issuesatthe interface
ofsociety,publicpolicy,technology,riskandthe
environment.Hemaybecontactedatpidgeonn@
cardiff.ac.uk.
-
7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications
14/14
on Nanotechnology (Durham: Durham University,
2009).
37.B.A.TurnerandN.F.Pidgeon.Man-Made
Disasters (Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann,
1997);EuropeanEnvironmentAgency,Late Lessons
from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle
18962000,EnvironmentalIssueReportno.22(Eu-
ropeanEnvironmentAgency,Copenhagen:2001).
38.J.Lovelock,note12,p.3888.
39.J.J.Blackstocketal.,note9.
40.G.RoweandL.Frewer,note19.
41.A.IrwinandB.Wynne,note19;M.Leachetal.,note19;G.RoweandL.Frewer,note19.
42.A. Malka, J. A. Krosnick, and G. Langer,
TheAssociationofKnowledgewithConcernAbout
GlobalWarming:TrustedInformationSourcesShape
Public Thinking,Risk Analysis 25, no. 5 (2009):
633647;D.M.Kahan,D.Braman,P.Slovic,J.Gas-
til,andG.Cohen,CulturalCognitionof theRisks
andBenetsofNanotechnology,Nature Nanotech-
nology4,no.2(2009):8790.
43.N.PidgeonandT.Rogers-Hayden.Opening
UpNanotechnologyDialoguewiththePublics:Risk
Communicationorupstreamengagement?Health,
Risk & Society9,no.2(2007):191210;TheRoyal
Society&theRoyalAcademyofEngineering,Na-
noscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and
Uncertainties,RSPolicyDocument19/04,(London:
RoyalSociety,2004);T.Rogers-HaydenandN.Pid-
geon.MovingEngagementupstream?Nanotech-
nologiesandtheRoyalSocietyandRoyalAcademy
ofEngineeringsInquiry,Public Understanding of
Science16(2007):345364;J.WilsdonandR.Wil-
lis. See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement
Needs to Move Upstream(Demos:London,2004);R.
Doubleday.Risk,PublicEngagementandReexiv-
ity:AlternativeFramingsof thePublicDimensions
ofNanotechnology,Health, Risk & Society9,no.2
(2007):211227.
44. D. H.GustonandD.Sarewitz,Real-Time
TechnologyAssessment,Technology in Society24
(2002):93109;P.Macnaghten,M.B.Kearnes,and
B.Wynne,Nanotechnology,GovernanceandPublic
Deliberation:WhatRole forthe Social Sciences?
Science Communication27(2005):268291.
45. M.Kearnes, R.Grove-White, P. Macnagh-
ten,J.Wilsdon,andB.Wynne,FromBiotoNano:
LearningLessonsfromtheUKAgriculturalBiotech-
nology Controversy,Science as Culture 15, no. 4
(2006):291307.
46. J. Walls, T. Rogers-Hayden, A. Mohr, andT. ORiordan. Seeking Citizens Views on GM
CropsExperiences from the United Kingdom,
Australia,andNewZealand. Environment47,no.7
(2005):2236.
47. For amoreextensivetypologyof publicen-
gagementmechanisms,seeG.RoweandL.J.Frewer,
ATypology of Public Engagement Mechanisms,
Science Technology Human Values 30(2005):251
290.
48.T.Rogers-Hayden&N.Pidgeon,note42;N.
Pidgeon,B.HerrHarthorn,K.Bryant,andT.Rogers-
Hayden, Deliberating theRisks ofNanotechnolo-
giesforEnergyandHealthApplicationsintheUnited
States andUnitedKingdom,Nature Nanotechnol-
ogy4,no.2(2009):9598.
49.J.Grundahl,TheDanishConsensusConfer-
enceModel,inS.JossandJ.Durant,Eds.,Public
Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus
Conferences in Europe (ScienceMuseum,London:
1995);J.Wallsetal.,note46.
50.TRogers-Hayden&N.Pidgeon,seenote42.
51.N.Pidgeonetal,note48
52.R.Flynnetal.,note19.
53.WorldWideViewsonGlobalWarming,http://
www.wwviews.org/files/images/WWViews_info_
sheet-v80-27_September%2009.pdf (accessed 2nd
October2009).
54.T.Rogers-Hayden&N.Pidgeon,note43.
55. S. O. Funtowicz and J. R. Ravetz, Three
Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of
Post-NormalScience,inS.KrimskyandD.Gold-
ing, Eds., Social Theories of Risk (Westport, CT:
Praeger,1992).
56.TheRoyalSociety,note1,p.60.
57.T.Sattereld,M.Kandlikar,C.E.H.Beaudrie,
J.Conti,and B.H.H.Harthorn, Anticipatingthe
PerceivedRiskofNanotechnologies,Nature Nano-
technology4no.6(2009):752758.
58.M.Kearnesetal.,note45. 59.EngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearch
Council,Nanotechnologies for the Targeted Delivery
of Therapeutic Agents & Nanotechnologies for Diag-
nostics: Summary of Public Consultation Findings
(Swindon:EPSRC,2008).
60.D.M.Kahanetal.,note42.
61. Personal communication from Tim Kruger,
DirectorofOxfordGeoengineeringResearch.
62.O.Renn&M.Rocco.Nanotechnology Risk
Governance,InternationalRiskGovernanceCouncil
WhitePaperNo.2,(Geneva:InternationalRiskGov-
ernanceCouncil,2006);RoyalSociety&TheRoyal
AcademyofEngineering,note43.
63.G.Monbiot,The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for
a New World Order(NewYork:HarperPerrenial,2004).
64.S.Jasanoff,LetThemEatCake:GMFoods
and theDemocratic Imagination, InM.Leach, I.
Scoones,andB.Wynne,Eds., Science and Citizens:
Globalization and the Challenges of Engagement
(London:ZedBooks,2005).
65.Allinformation derivedfromtechniquesre-
viewedbytheRoyalSociety,note1.
66.TheapproachesareadaptedfromBox7.4in
theRoyalSociety&RoyalSocietyofEngineering
reportonnanotechnology(p.65),note43.
UMUCENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT
Now you can do something good for the planetand your career. Becausethe stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into green jobs. Earnan undergraduate or graduate degree or certicate in environmentalmanagement from University of Maryland University College (UMUC). Beready for jobs in pollution prevention and management, regulatory policyand global sustainability.
7.22 bILLION sTIMULUs dOLLARs.ThOUsANds Of GREEN jObs.
Enroll now. Call 800-888-UMUC
or viit umuc.eu/environment
MS in Environmental Management isrecognized by the Council of GraduateSchools as a Professional Science Masters
Classes available fully online
Scholarships, loans and an interest-freemonthly payment plan available
Copyrigt 2010 Univerity o Marylan Univerity College