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]

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.