Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now

Climatic Change

Volumn 121, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 567-577

  Carr, Wylie A ^a   Preston, Christopher J ^a   Yung, Laurie ^a   Szerszynski, Bronislaw ^b   Keith, David W ^c   Mercer, Ashley M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING PROCESS; GEOENGINEERING; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; RADIATION MANAGEMENT;

SOLAR RADIATION; SUN;

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT;

DECISION MAKING; GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING; SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; SOLAR RADIATION;

EID: 84888136657     PISSN: 01650009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0763-y     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. BPC (2011) Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Bipartisan Policy Center's Task Force on Climate Remediation.
2. Carr W, Mercer A, Palmer C (2012) Public concerns about the ethics of solar radiation management. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lahham, pp 169-186.
3. Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books, London.
4. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2010) Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications. Environment 52(1): 24-37.
5. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of 'upstream' engagement. Wiley Interdisc Rev Clim Chang 3(5): 451-466.
6. Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77(3): 211-220.
7. Delgado A, Lein Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2011) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(6): 826-845.
8. Dryzek JS, Tucker A (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Admin Rev 68(5): 864-876.
9. European Commission (2002) Science and society: Action plan. European Commission, Luxembourg.
10. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Tech Hum Val 15(2): 226-243.
11. Galarraga M, Szerszynski B (forthcoming) Geoengineering knowledge: interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research. Environ Plan A.
12. Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wynne B (2000) Wising up: The public and new technologies. Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University, Lancaster, http://www. csec. lancs. ac. uk/docs/wising_upmacnaghten. pdf.
13. House of Commons (2010) The regulation of geoengineering. Science and Technology Committee. Fifth report of the session 2009-2010 (HC221).
14. House of Lords (2000) Science and society: Third report. Select Committee on Science and Technology, London.
15. Hulme M (2010) Climate intervention schemes could be undone by geopolitics. Yale Environ 360: http://e360. yale. edu/author/Mike_Hulme/84/.
16. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. IPCC, Cambridge.
17. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing the nanoscale: Peoples, policies, and emerging technologies. Demos, London.
18. Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energ Environ 25(1): 245.
19. Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York.
20. Leshner AI (2003) Public engagement with science. Science 299(5609): 977.
21. Longino H (1990) Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in science and social inquiry. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
22. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2): 268-291.
23. Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B (2013) Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on geoengineering and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Chang. doi: 10. 1016/j. gloenvcha. 2012. 12. 008, published online 21 January 2013.
24. Marris C, Wynne B, Simmons P, Weldon S (2001) Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABE Research project, http://www. lancs. ac. uk/depts/ieppp/pabe/docs. htm.
25. Mercer AM, Keith D, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6(4): 044006.
26. Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, Keith D (2012) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Chang 110(3): 649-668.
27. Olson R (2011) Geoengineering for decision makers. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D. C.
28. Pongratz J, Lobell DB, Cao L, Caldeira K (2012) Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nat Clim Chang 2(2): 101-105.
29. Preston C (2012) Solar radiation management and vulnerable populations: The moral deficit and its prospects. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lanham, pp. 77-93.
30. Rayner S, Redgewell C, Savulescu J, Pidgeon N, Kruger T (2009) Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research, (the 'Oxford Principles') reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The regulation of geoengineering, fifth report of the session 2009-10, report together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence, (HC221), 18 March 2010. www. publications. parliament. uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221. pdf.
31. Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2013) The Oxford Principles. Climatic Change. doi: 10. 1007/s10584-012-0675-2.
32. Ricke KL, Morgan MG, Allen MR (2010) Regional climate response to solar-radiation management. Nat Geosci 3(8): 537-541.
33. 2 injections. J Geophys Res: Atmospheres, 113(D16), D16101.
34. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Tech Hum Val 30(2): 251-290.
35. Royal Society (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society, London.
36. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance, and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London.
37. Rusike E (2005) Exploring food and farming futures in Zimbabwe: A citizens' jury and scenario workshop experiment. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London.
38. Sarewitz D, Nelson R (2008) Three rules for technological fixes. Nature 456(18): 671-872.
39. Scott D (2012) Insurance policy or technological fix? The ethical implications of framing solar radiation management. In: Preston CJ (ed) Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management. Lexington Books, Lahham, pp. 151-168.
40. Shue H (1992) The unavoidability of justice. In: Hurrell A, Kingsbury B (eds) International politics of the environment: Actors, interests and institutions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 373-397.
41. SRMGI (2013) Solar radiation management: The governance of research. Environmental Defense Fund, The Royal Society, TWAS. http://www. srmgi. org/.
42. Stilgoe J (2011) A question of intent. Nat Clim Chang 1: 325-326.
43. Stilgoe J, Wilsdon J (2007) The rules of engagement: Dialogue and democracy in creating nanotechnology futures. In: Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (eds) Nanoethics: The ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 241-249.
44. Stirling A (2005) Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation, and power in the social appraisal of technology. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London, pp 218-231.
45. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London.
46. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes but missing the music. Community Genet 9: 211-220.