Search

In this Forum, three scholars discuss how climate engineering will pose novel human rights challenges, and may well force reconsideration of how human rights are applied as a guide to action. Following a short introduction, the first section introduces three competing approaches to human rights, arguing views which emphasize fairness or attempt to maximize satisfaction are more promising than one viewing human rights as inviolable 'side-constraints'. The second section draws lessons from climate migration that are relevant for climate engineering in terms of incorporating a human rights approach to duties, rights, and participation. The final section compares the 'needs-based' and 'rights-based' approaches to humanitarian work in the face of climate change and climate engineering, raising concerns for duty-bearers and right-holders. The Forum's conclusion draws together points of overlap and suggests a path forward for policy and research on this topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some scientists suggest that it might be possible to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space to reduce climate change and its impacts. Others argue that such solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering is inherently incompatible with democracy. In this article, we reject this incompatibility argument. First, we counterargue that technologies such as SRM lack innate political characteristics and predetermined social effects, and that democracy need not be deliberative to serve as a standard for governance. We then rebut each of the argument’s core claims, countering that (1) democratic institutions are sufficiently resilient to manage SRM, (2) opting out of governance decisions is not a fundamental democratic right, (3) SRM may not require an undue degree of technocracy, and (4) its implementation may not concentrate power and promote authoritarianism. Although we reject the incompatibility argument, we do not argue that SRM is necessarily, or even likely to be, democratic in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“Solar geoengineering” or albedo modification—changing the reflectivity of the earth, using methods like placing particles in the stratosphere—has been proposed as a means to potentially cool the Arctic and forestall climate tipping points. However, this concept has remained a global imaginary, grounded in coarse-resolution climate modeling. How do people actually living in the Arctic imagine themselves experiencing or shaping solar geoengineering? How can the experience of people in particular places inform discussions of solar geoengineering governance? This paper synthesizes perspectives from extended interviews with citizen stakeholders in Finnish Lapland. Rather than approaching solar geoengineering from the perspective of Arctic or local interests, respondents took a global view of its prospects and governance. However, the idea of solar geoengineering also sparked deeper discussions about northern or Arctic ways of living in the Anthropocene: how to coexist with loss and unfamiliar climates, relocalization and new rural livelihoods in the north, and dematerialization of northern economies. The results challenge some common tacit assumptions in geoengineering governance discourse: (1) that people’s climate preferences are obvious or quantifiable; (2) that individuals will look at solar geoengineering through an personal, utilitarian lens, or as a game of maximizing benefits to their region, when in fact they may have a cosmopolitan or interconnected systems-perspective; and (3) that states act in the interests of their citizens, when in fact they may act in the interests of elites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geoengineering has been broadly and helpfully defined as 'the intentional manipulation of the earth's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change or its warming effects' (Corner and Pidgeon , 26). Although there exists a rapidly growing literature on the ethics of geoengineering, very little has been written about its gender dimensions. The authors consider four contexts in which geoengineering appears to have important gender dimensions: (1) the demographics of those pushing the current agenda, (2) the overall vision of control it involves, (3) the design of the particular technologies, and (4) whom geoengineering will most affect and benefit. After detailing these four gender dimensions, we consider three ways in which the geoengineering discourse could be enriched if it became more sensitive to issues of gender. These include increasing the focus on the concrete other, recognizing the socially transformative potential of geoengineering technologies, and engaging in value-sensitive design. Although ultimately remaining agnostic on the desirability of geoengineering, the paper brings gender considerations into a discussion from which they have been conspicuously absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]