I'm coming to the end of my journey now, and what a journey it's been.
I set out expecting mine to be an easy task; surely somewhere a way to safely remove carbon dioxide from the air and manage climate change was in development?
But instead, I've been confronted with a whole host of difficult questions and ethical concerns, some of which I've found quite daunting. But, I've learned a lot and I'm taking away some valuable messages from this experience.
Firstly, geoengineering is a serious issue and needs to be treated as such.
Secondly, research is being done and will continue on geoengineering projects. This must be performed in an ethical, responsible way for the safety of our planet.
Thirdly, frameworks for responsible innovation have been developed and must be not only encouraged but enforced within the context of geoengineering research. Some public engagement has already started but there hasn't been nearly enough.
Once a mandatory framework for ethical research is in place, next comes the science.
The most natural forms of geoengineering that I've seen, to me, are the most acceptable. This is an opinion that echoes that voiced in focus groups held so far by Corner et. al. (2013). REDD+ schemes are a no brainer - they reap benefits in ecology and biodiversity as well as reducing atmospheric CO2. The same can be said of afforestation projects, as long as care is taken over where forests are planted so that the reduction in surface albedo does not offset and negative carbon emissions.
Enhanced weathering too seems to have great potential. It deserves more careful study, but I won't be holding my breath for its launch.
Lastly, the road to developing enhanced weathering, or any other scheme for that matter, into a safe and acceptable form ready to be deployed is extremely long. But climate change isn't waiting for us. We must not fall into the fatal trap of the moral hazard and rely too much on a techno-fix to solve our problems - it might never come.
Instead, urgent action needs to be taken to prevent dangerous climate change from happening in the first place. That is the most important message of all.
Sunday 10 January 2016
Friday 8 January 2016
Responsible innovation
"Taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present".
This is how Stilgoe et. al. (2013) define responsible research and innovation. Scinetific progress is an essential part of societal progress and overcoming challenges, but it must be done in a safe, mindful and responsible way. Especially in the context of geoengineering research, where the results could impact everyone on the planet!
Macnaghten and Chilvers (2014) list the following lines of question that should be considered throughout any responsible research and development (R&D) process:
It's a long list but that just confirms that there's a lot to consider. Responsible innovation isn't an easy task, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile - quite the opposite.
The questions should encourage self-awareness and self-reflection by scientists and governments involved in R&D.
Stilgoe et. al. (2013) identify four key pillars of responsible innovation which can be used as a framework within which these questions can be answered, and which should be applied to R&D in geoengineering.
These are:
Anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness.
Anticipation is a systematic process and encourages foresight within research. Anticipating potential problems before they arise can not only increase resilience, but further advance innovation.
Reflexivity means being able to reflect upon one's actions and intentions - at an institutional level as well as personal - to gain an appreciation of how other people in society might feel about what you're doing.
Inclusivity. This seems to be a recurring theme across the literature. Making sure people at all levels of society are included in any development process so they're able to voice opinions and air concerns. Inclusivity encourages engaging the wider public through forums, interviews, focus groups and surveys. But inclusivity on its own isn't sufficient; Callon et. al. (2009) stipulate three criteria to ensure inclusivity is worthwhile. These are: intensity (how early and consistently the public is engaged), openness (how diverse the group itself is, ensuring that all parts of society are represented) and quality (the wholeness of discussion, ensuring that every necessary aspect of the research is covered so the public has had opportunity to raise concerns with every part of the research).
The final component of Stilgoe et. al's (2013) framework is responsiveness. Acting upon issues raised during these processes and making sure that the most desired route of innovation across the whole of society is realised.
Together these four values create a framework that can help to ensure technologies are developed in a responsible way, which the whole of society finds acceptable and desirable. A tall order but the alternative is unacceptable.
It is only be following a framework like this one that geoengineering technologies could be developed in a truly ethical and considerate way.
This is how Stilgoe et. al. (2013) define responsible research and innovation. Scinetific progress is an essential part of societal progress and overcoming challenges, but it must be done in a safe, mindful and responsible way. Especially in the context of geoengineering research, where the results could impact everyone on the planet!
 |
| From The Pioneer Woman.com |
Macnaghten and Chilvers (2014) list the following lines of question that should be considered throughout any responsible research and development (R&D) process:
- How will the risks and benefits be distributed?
- What other impacts can we anticipate? How might these change in the future?
- What don't we know about?
- What might we never know about?
- How should standards be drawn up and applied?
- How should risks and benefits be defined and measured?
- Who is in control?
- Who is taking part?
- Who will take responsibility if things go wrong?
- How do we know we are right?
- Why are researchers doing it?
- Are these motivations transparent and in the public interest?
- Who will benefit?
- What are they going to gain?
- What are the alternatives?
It's a long list but that just confirms that there's a lot to consider. Responsible innovation isn't an easy task, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile - quite the opposite.
The questions should encourage self-awareness and self-reflection by scientists and governments involved in R&D.
Stilgoe et. al. (2013) identify four key pillars of responsible innovation which can be used as a framework within which these questions can be answered, and which should be applied to R&D in geoengineering.
These are:
Anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness.
Anticipation is a systematic process and encourages foresight within research. Anticipating potential problems before they arise can not only increase resilience, but further advance innovation.
Reflexivity means being able to reflect upon one's actions and intentions - at an institutional level as well as personal - to gain an appreciation of how other people in society might feel about what you're doing.
Inclusivity. This seems to be a recurring theme across the literature. Making sure people at all levels of society are included in any development process so they're able to voice opinions and air concerns. Inclusivity encourages engaging the wider public through forums, interviews, focus groups and surveys. But inclusivity on its own isn't sufficient; Callon et. al. (2009) stipulate three criteria to ensure inclusivity is worthwhile. These are: intensity (how early and consistently the public is engaged), openness (how diverse the group itself is, ensuring that all parts of society are represented) and quality (the wholeness of discussion, ensuring that every necessary aspect of the research is covered so the public has had opportunity to raise concerns with every part of the research).
The final component of Stilgoe et. al's (2013) framework is responsiveness. Acting upon issues raised during these processes and making sure that the most desired route of innovation across the whole of society is realised.
Together these four values create a framework that can help to ensure technologies are developed in a responsible way, which the whole of society finds acceptable and desirable. A tall order but the alternative is unacceptable.
It is only be following a framework like this one that geoengineering technologies could be developed in a truly ethical and considerate way.
Friday 1 January 2016
Ice ice baby
I've just reached Planet Fenglewelt, where headlines recently appeared claiming that the inhabitants here may have already been accidentally geoengineering their planet without realising it.
The news broke at the 2015 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting when NOAA scientist Charles Long announced that aeroplanes could be having a geoengineering effect.
Mr Long speculated that aerosols in contrails might be acting as nuclei on which water vapour condenses to form ice crystals high in the sky. Small ice crystals could be scattering sunlight on it's way through the atmosphere, thus stopping it from ever reaching and warming the planet surface.
The Smithsonian reported that the hypothesis originated when scientists noticed that the amount of sunlight reaching the planet surface had varied from the 1950s - 1980s, showing an initial "dimming" trend before "brightening" again. This subtle change couldn't apparently be accounted for by changes in the sun's actual output, so they started to look for possible explanations in the atmosphere - possible mechanisms that could be reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground.
The hypothesis is still in early days and a lot more research needs to be done before it is confirmed. And in any event, aviation is estimated to account for up to 3.5% of total anthropogenic radiative forcing, so any conclusions that aeroplanes are cooling the planet would be premature to say the least!
The news broke at the 2015 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting when NOAA scientist Charles Long announced that aeroplanes could be having a geoengineering effect.
Mr Long speculated that aerosols in contrails might be acting as nuclei on which water vapour condenses to form ice crystals high in the sky. Small ice crystals could be scattering sunlight on it's way through the atmosphere, thus stopping it from ever reaching and warming the planet surface.
 |
| Source: Wired. |
The Smithsonian reported that the hypothesis originated when scientists noticed that the amount of sunlight reaching the planet surface had varied from the 1950s - 1980s, showing an initial "dimming" trend before "brightening" again. This subtle change couldn't apparently be accounted for by changes in the sun's actual output, so they started to look for possible explanations in the atmosphere - possible mechanisms that could be reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the ground.
The hypothesis is still in early days and a lot more research needs to be done before it is confirmed. And in any event, aviation is estimated to account for up to 3.5% of total anthropogenic radiative forcing, so any conclusions that aeroplanes are cooling the planet would be premature to say the least!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)