Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 The Decision Space: Context and Key Considerations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance
Pages 111-138

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 111...
... SG research could be viewed as seeking a middle ground, where scientific knowledge is acquired to assess the feasibility and uncertainties of deployable, predictable, and controllable SG technologies, and to provide information that permits society to assess the value of SG as part of climate change response. At the intersection of science and society are people who must make decisions about research activities, governance mechanisms, and potential deployment actions.
From page 112...
... • Decisions about research and deployment will be made within a broader climate change context of research, responses, and impacts. The relative risks and benefits of an array of possible climate responses -- inclusive of SG and absent SG -- are important.
From page 113...
... • How are these different options likely to be received or accepted by different stakeholders and publics? • How might SG affect the broader portfolio of climate responses?
From page 114...
... . The "climate context" for SG decision making will depend in particular on the severity of climate impacts occurring and on the degree to which other climate change responses (e.g., mitigation, carbon dioxide removal [CDR]
From page 115...
... If that island nation were part of a coalition of island nations mounting a coordinated deployment campaign that started to have measurable global effect, these differences might diminish. Similarly, an SAI deployment focused on Arctic sea ice preservation, while it would still have a global impact, would have different implications and potentially elicit different responses than efforts designed to change global temperature.
From page 116...
... Section 2.3b reviews the "conditional" support for SG that is found in social science research studies. Environmental NGO positions are divided on the question of outdoor experiments -- some silent, many strongly opposed,3 and others in favor of caution with controls for outdoor experiments and greater engagement of global publics in decision making.4 These widely varying views illustrate why an SG research program needs to be multifaceted, encompassing not only natural science research to better understand the direct and indirect effects of different SG approaches, but also social science research to better understand societal views on risk tolerance and equity, as well as the most effective and appropriate methods to engage stakeholders and to build research and research governance capacity.
From page 117...
... If risks are significant, they might further ask whether a consequential precipitation change that is observed following deployment could be attributable among natural climate variability, direct consequences of climate change, or the SG activity. Many difficulties in reducing uncertainty are linked to challenges associated with performing field experiments on the spatial and temporal scales required to observe climate impacts.
From page 118...
... Another particular challenge for comparative risk assessment is the diverse perception of risk across the global communities that may be affected by SG research or deployment. Climate change effects -- with or without SG -- will not be distributed equally across the globe, and risk perceptions and risk-related values vary significantly across nations and communities.
From page 119...
... Efforts to understand and characterize the climatic, ecological, and social risks and uncertainties associated with SG, as well as to understand their significance for various groups, will be an important component of any research program. A risk governance approach can incorporate comparative risk assessment into a broader frame that includes collaborative, participatory, and adaptive approaches to managing risk, uncertainty, and ignorance.
From page 120...
... Failure to Meet Climate Mitigation Goals SG research emerged largely in response to concerns over inadequate action to mitigate climate change by reducing GHG emissions. Rationales for considering SG as one element of a broader climate response include (i)
From page 121...
... Societal acceptability of expanded investments in SG research within the United States and internationally may be contingent, in part, on how moral hazard concerns are addressed. An expanded research program can be expected to have greater social acceptability if it is embedded within a portfolio of climate policies and research investments that include a firm policy commitment to decarbonization.
From page 122...
... Demonstrations of transparency with regard to risks unearthed by a research program or of an aversion to advocating for deployment in the face of lingering uncertainties about SG's secondary impacts could reduce an impetus toward deployment. • The economic acceleration scenario is mitigated by the natural marketplace of capital allocation, as substantial economic forces are already pursuing more traditional climate mitigation measures.
From page 123...
... incorporating public engagement into decision processes (Callies, 2019a)
From page 124...
... Time frames for research and development are often unstated or focus on the short term, such as the next 5–10 years. Geoengineering research is not, however, an open-ended, curiosity-driven enterprise, and the technologies being explored are generally envisioned as relevant to addressing climate impacts this century.
From page 125...
... 3.3a Research Governance Considerations A key near-term goal of SG research governance could be to foster a diverse, socially engaged, responsible, and accountable research program that provides clearer understanding of SG as one possible component of a broader climate response strategy, incorporating the complex and interdisciplinary perspectives inherent to the topic. With that goal in mind, some critical functions of research governance would include the following: 125
From page 126...
... As research governance extends to potential deployment governance, the institutional challenges increase dramatically. Although research and decisions regarding whether to pursue SG further may happen over coming decades, the time frame for deployment to achieve and maintain a desired effect is typically envisioned as significantly longer, on the magnitude of decades to centuries.
From page 127...
... Research governance can advance and coordinate appropriate research; facilitate inclusive and equitable public and stakeholder engagement; address physical risks and social, ethical, and legal concerns relating to research; and help to guide research toward socially beneficial ends. Contemporary scientific research is governed to improve both research processes and research outcomes.
From page 128...
... . This is particularly true of issuedriven areas with high stakes, differing values, and difficulty in reducing uncertainty, in which a post-normal scientific approach involves broader communities in knowledge generation and validation (Ravetz and Funtowicz, 1999)
From page 129...
... , and there are other perspectives from which the mission of geoengineering research could be understood. For example, some countries might be less interested in determining how to design an SG strategy than about how to detect and attribute any negative side effects of another country's intervention; other countries may be legitimately worried about existential threats from unabated climate change and therefore may be particularly interested in engaging with and supporting deployment-oriented research.
From page 130...
... 3.3c Society-Research Governance Intersection The substantial and growing body of literature on ethics, justice, and equity addresses a range of issues including whether and under what conditions geoengineering would be morally permissible; whether and how SG could be fair and equitable, considering multiple dimensions of justice (e.g., distributive, procedural, recognitional, and intergenerational) ; what principles might guide ethical governance; and how to evaluate SG in relation to other climate response options and address interactions with other climate responses.
From page 131...
... More specifically, one can co-develop governance approaches, governance research, governance capacity, and governance structures alongside research (with mutual learning between the research and research governance efforts) , beginning in the early stages, in order to make thoughtful and legitimate decisions about whether or how research should proceed, what directions it should take, and whether and under what conditions SG should ever be used.
From page 132...
... Socially responsive science requires not only socially guided goal setting but also ongoing en gagement in the process of science itself.This involves engaging publics and stakeholders throughout the research process to anticipate the potential environmental,social,political, economic, and other consequences of research and innovation; reflect on research aims in light of those potential consequences; and inclusively deliberate about and adapt research trajectories as learning proceeds. • Collective responsibility for science and innovation.
From page 133...
... Commitments to transparency, justice, and broad engagement in the design and implementation of research will facilitate institutionalization of these values and practices going forward. 3.4 PRINCIPLES FOR SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH AND RESEARCH GOVERNANCE In order to integrate the breadth of the complexity of the intertwined research, social, and governance issues associated with SG, the committee explored higher-level principles to inform the design of a research agenda and associated governance mechanisms and to ensure completeness in addressing critical elements.
From page 134...
... Woods' principles were not developed specifically for global governance of science, but they overlap with science governance recommendations such as those of the 2009 Global Governance of Science report to the European Commission, which endorsed five principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence (Ozolin¸a et al., 2009)
From page 135...
... were developed and presented to the British House of Commons, then later published in an academic journal. The Oxford Principles, which aimed to address "early research through deployment," are as follows: • Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good; • Public participation in geoengineering decision making; • Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results; • Independent assessment of impacts; and • Governance before deployment.
From page 136...
... . Compared to the Oxford Principles, the Tollgate Principles provide more specificity regarding the interests that geoengineering research or deployment should serve: a "global, intergenerational, and ecological public." Additionally, compared to the Oxford Principles, the Tollgate Principles make reference to a number of more substantive 136
From page 137...
... This underscores the idea that research governance needs to promote research and development that is fair and equitable, including concern for substantive impacts and inclusive processes. Across the writing on SG research and research governance, certain key ideas and principles repeatedly emerge: • Transparency; • International coordination and cooperation; • International governance of any experiments with transboundary effects (and seeking to avoid transboundary harm)
From page 138...
... Our subsequent research governance recommendations, discussed in Chapter 5, are informed by these principles.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.