Search

Geoengineering is often defined as the 'deliberate large scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change' (The Royal Society, [11], p. 1).[1] The two main approaches currently being discussed are reflecting sunlight away from the planet (solar radiation management, or SRM), or sucking greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and then storing or processing them (carbon dioxide removal, or CDR). CDR is already assumed as part of the majority of IPCC scenarios for achieving the internationally agreed target of two degrees Celsius (Smith et al., [12]) and could form a significant part of the policy portfolio for tackling climate change, if the technology proves to be scalable, effective, and affordable. Taken together with the previous special issue, they demonstrate the need for ongoing engagement from experts in ethics and political philosophy with the geoengineering debate, and the value of such engagement. Climate change, climate engineering, and the "global poor": What does justice require?. [Extracted from the article]

Solar radiation management (SRM) – a form of geoengineering – creates a risk of 'termination shock'. If SRM was to be stopped abruptly then temperatures could rise very rapidly with catastrophic impacts. Two prominent geoengineering researchers have recently argued that the risk of termination shock could be minimised through the adoption of 'relatively simple' policies. This paper shows their arguments to be premised on heroically optimistic assumptions about the prospects for global cooperation and sustained trust in an SRM deployment scenario. The paper argues that worst-case scenarios are the right place to start in thinking about the governance of SRM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate-induced population displacement and resettlement is an ongoing problem around the world, and one that is being exacerbated by climate change. To date, most attempts to address this problem have taken a top-down approach in which international justice, legal and humanitarian frameworks are extended 'downwards' by policymakers and governments to local populations. However, there has been limited systematic work that emphasizes the abilities of affected peoples themselves to develop and formulate their own justice-based solutions. This paper presents an analytical framework for thinking about 'bottom-up' claims-making that emphasizes naming, blaming, claiming and framing. The framework enables claims-making to be distinguished from other forms of community-based agency, such as adaptation. The paper also suggests a normative framework to support policymakers and practitioners in helping communities facing displacement to make claims. The normative framework focuses on the barriers to, and opportunities for, claims-making 'from below'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arguments are advanced for two ways in which we can avoid the reckless endangerment of future people in the governance of solar radiation management (SRM) research, which could happen through lock-in to SRM deployment from research. SRM research is at an early stage, one at which the mechanisms of lock-in could start to operate. However, lock-in fit to endanger future people could be slowed or stopped through targeted governance. Governance of SRM research that does not include provisions to detect, slow, or stop lock-in fails the test of an intergenerationally adequate precautionary principle, and research governed without these provisions cannot itself be justified as a precaution against the impacts of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate‐induced resettlement programs are happening right now in places around the world where populations face high risks from climatic impacts. Burgeoning literatures are considering the ethical implications of climate change more broadly, and the ethics of migration, but the nexus between the two issues has not been given enough attention by moral and political theorists, especially with respect to climate‐induced community resettlement. Here, we sketch the key nodes in a debate we think should take place, which will be made even more urgent in the coming decades as climate change impacts on communities least resilient to it. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the tolerance of climate change denial or misrepresentation of climate change's scientific realities such as its anthropogenic causes and its impact. Topics discussed include the qualification of climate denial as contestation of climate science theories, the disguise of fossil fuel industry's harmful externalities, and the threat of climate denial to human security. It also mentioned the climate denial propaganda by conservative research institutes.

In the face of accelerating climate change and the parlous state of its politics, despair is tempting. This paper analyses two manifestations of despair about climate change related to (1) the inefficacy of personal emissions reductions, and (2) the inability to make a difference to climate change through personal emissions reductions. On the back of an analysis of despair as a loss of hope, the paper argues that the judgements grounding each form of despair are unsound. The paper concludes with consideration of the instrumental value of hope in effective agency to tackle climate change. Overall, the paper's assessment of personal despair about climate change as philosophically unjustified provides a fresh perspective on aspects of the debate about how to frame climate change in public debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key reason for pessimism with respect to greenhouse gas emissions reduction relates to the 'motivation problem', whereby those who could make the biggest difference prima facie have the least incentive to act because they are most able to adapt: how can we motivate such people (and thereby everyone else) to accept, indeed to initiate, the changes to their lifestyles that are required for effective emissions reductions? This paper offers an account inspired by Rawls of the good of membership of 'intergenerational cooperative union' to achieve justice that provides a solution to the motivation problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Derek Bell on anthropogenic climate change, another by Stephen M. Gardiner on the general applicability of political theory to climate change, and one by Elizabeth Cripps on the collective action on global climate change.

The article focuses on the precautionary principles of climate change (CC). It argues on precautionary principle as an approach that should be considered by policy-makers on CC matters. It applies Clive Spash's typology of uncertainty to determine probabilities of weak and strong uncertainty of CC catastrophe (CCC), which can guide policy-makers in conducting standard risk assessment through its costs and impact. It also states an elaborate explanation of both the strong Precautionary Principle (SPP) and the weak PP (WPP) to address CCC. Arguments regarding the problems on the principles are also presented.

Introduces a series of articles on workfare and work ethic.

Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies would reflect a small amount of incoming solar radiation back into space before the radiation can warm the planet. Although SRM may emerge as a useful component of a global response to climate change, there is also good reason for caution. In June 2017, the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance released a policy report, "Governing Solar Radiation Management", which developed a set of objectives to govern SRM in the near-term future: (1) keep mitigation and adaptation first; (2) thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits; (3) enable responsible knowledge creation; and (4) ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment. To advance the governance objectives identified above, the working group developed twelve recommendations, grouped into three clusters: (1) create politically legitimate deliberative bodies; (2) leverage existing institutions; and (3) make research transparent and accountable. This communication discusses the rationale behind each cluster and elaborates on a subset of the recommendations from each cluster. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]