2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications

7/31/2019 2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications

1/14

GoGG C:

SoC CCoS

by AdA C Ad Ck Pd


2/14

The acceptability of

geoengineering will be

determined as much by

social, legal, and political

issues as by scientific

and technical factors1


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


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


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


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)


6/14


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


7/14

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


Tree seedlings being grown for a reforestation project in Africa.

iStoCkphoto/WarWiCkliSter-kaYephotoGraphY


8/14


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.


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


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


10/14


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.


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-


iStoCkphoto/ktSimaGe


12/14


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.


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


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.

[email protected].

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.


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

Documents

2010 - Corner and Pidgeon - GE Social and Ethical Implications