The practice of responsible research and innovation in "climate engineering"

被引:28
作者
Low, Sean [1 ,2 ]
Buck, Holly Jean [3 ]
机构
[1] Inst Adv Sustainabil Studies, Berliner Str 130, D-14467 Potsdam, Germany
[2] Univ Utrecht, Copernicus Inst Sustainable Dev, Utrecht, Netherlands
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
assessments; climate engineering; governance; research practices; responsible research and innovation; SOLAR-RADIATION MANAGEMENT; NEGATIVE EMISSIONS; POLITICAL-ECONOMY; CARBON CAPTURE; MORAL HAZARD; FUTURE; TECHNOLOGY; GOVERNANCE; DISCOURSES; SCIENCE;
D O I
10.1002/wcc.644
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Sunlight reflection and carbon removal proposals for "climate engineering" (CE) confront governance challenges that many emerging technologies face: their futures are uncertain, and by the time one can discern their shape or impacts, vested interests may block regulation, and publics are often left out of decision-making about them. In response to these challenges, "responsible research and innovation" (RRI) has emerged as a framework to critique and correct for technocratic governance of emerging technologies, and CE has emerged as a prime case of where it can be helpfully applied. However, a critical lens is rarely applied to RRI itself. In this review, we first survey how RRI thinking has already been applied to both carbon removal and sunlight reflection methods for climate intervention. We examine how RRI is employed in four types of activities: Assessment processes and reports, principles and protocols for research governance, critical mappings of research, and deliberative and futuring engagements. Drawing upon this review, we identify tensions in RRI practice, including whether RRI forms or informs choices, the positionalities of RRI practitioners, and ways in which RRI activities enable or disable particular climate interventions. Finally, we recommend that RRI should situate CE within the long arc of sociotechnical proposals for addressing climate change, more actively connect interrogations of the knowledge economy with reparative engagements, include local or actor-specific contexts, design authoritative assessments grounded in RRI, and go beyond treating critique and engagement as "de facto" governance. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 154 条
  • [61] Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain: Expert understandings of epistemological uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
    Haikola, Simon
    Hansson, Anders
    Fridahl, Mathias
    [J]. FUTURES, 2019, 114
  • [62] From polarization to reluctant acceptance-bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and the post-normalization of the climate debate
    Haikola, Simon
    Hansson, Anders
    Anshelm, Jonas
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2019, 16 (01) : 45 - 69
  • [63] From 'Go Slow' to 'Gung Ho'? Climate Engineering Discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany
    Harnisch, Sebastian
    Uther, Stephanie
    Boettcher, Miranda
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 2015, 15 (02) : 57 - +
  • [64] Three Models of Global Climate Governance: From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond
    Held, David
    Roger, Charles
    [J]. GLOBAL POLICY, 2018, 9 (04) : 527 - 537
  • [66] HEYWARD JC, 2013, 7 CLIM GEOENG GOV
  • [67] How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals
    Himmelsbach, Raffael
    [J]. SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY, 2018, 45 (01) : 124 - 133
  • [68] Solar Geoengineering and Democracy
    Horton, Joshua B.
    Reynolds, Jesse L.
    Buck, Holly Jean
    Callies, Daniel
    Schaefer, Stefan
    Keith, David W.
    Rayner, Steve
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 2018, 18 (03) : 5 - 24
  • [69] HUBERT AM, 2017, REVISED CODE CONDUCT
  • [70] Hulme M., 2014, Can Science Fix Climate Change?