Search

The article focuses on the controversy surrounding carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in the context of new carbon dioxide emissions standards for power plants. Topics include the criticisms and resistance to CCS from both industry and climate advocates, the existing technologies and risks associated with CCS, and the potential applications and limitations of CCS in achieving climate goals.

Countries and companies with net-zero emissions targets are considering carbon removal strategies to compensate for remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Soil carbon sequestration is one such carbon removal strategy, and policy and corporate interest is growing in figuring out how to motivate farmers to sequester more carbon. But how do farmers in various cultural and geographic contexts view soil carbon sequestration as a climate mitigation or carbon removal strategy? This article systematically reviews the empirical social science literature on farmer adoption of soil carbon sequestration practices and participation in carbon markets or programs. The article finds thirty-seven studies over the past decade that involve empirical research with soil carbon sequestering practices in a climate context, with just over a quarter of those focusing on the Global South. A central finding is co-benefits are a strong motivator for adoption, especially given minimal carbon policies and low carbon prices. Other themes in the literature include educational and cultural barriers to adoption, the difference between developing and developed world contexts, and policy preferences among farmers for soil carbon sequestration incentives. However, we argue that given the rising profile of technical potentials and carbon credits, this peer-reviewed literature on the social aspects of scaling soil carbon sequestration is quite limited. We discuss why the social science literature is so small, and what this research gap means for efforts to achieve higher levels of soil carbon sequestration. We conclude with a ten-point social science research agenda for social science on soil carbon—and some cautions about centering carbon too strongly in research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The second and third chapters, grouped in a section entitled, "The Political Economy of Platforms, Post-truth, and Power", explain how post-truth relates to platform capitalism. It's not just that we are siloed in our disciplines - we may be entering a new phase of "platform academia", with the dynamics and demands of social media creeping into scholarship, and academic publishing platforms functioning like media platforms. The Truth about Nature: Environmentalism in the Era of Post-truth Politics and Platform Capitalism: By Bram Büscher Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2021, 254 pp., $85.00 (hardcover), ISBN: 9780520371446; $29.95 (paperback), ISBN: 9780520371453. [Extracted from the article]

The Anthropocene—the geological epoch in which human activities are signaled in Earth's geological records—often appears as an age to be met with grim resignation. Anxiety-driven narratives about this era can translate into very material landscapes of surveillance, tightened borders, farmland acquisitions, and so on, landscapes where speculation shapes lived realities. This article proposes that instead of joining the chorus of dark predictions, or rejecting the flawed concept altogether, geographers are well positioned to experiment with articulating a different Anthropocene. Fragments of a beautiful Anthropocene are already under design: agroecology, green roofs and buildings, distributed renewable energy systems. Yet to weave together a vision compelling enough to provoke cultural and political change, other elements are necessary: a reawakened sense of wonder, an ethic of care, and aesthetic and cultural production around these. This article proposes enchantment as a concept to evoke these elements and discusses the merits and dangers of imagining an enchanted Anthropocene. It looks at emergent alternative framings for thinking about a human-shaped earth and examples of related practices—rewilding, biophilic cities, planetary gardening, smart landscapes—which could make for a more habitable and welcoming epoch. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been an object of social science research for nearly two decades now. However, CCS has moved beyond coal-fired electricity, and its roles in industrial decarbonization and atmospheric carbon dioxide removal are newly valued. Is the earlier social science research on CCS applicable to the current moment, or has the context and the object of inquiry changed? This paper assesses whether existing findings are fit-for-purpose, arguing that there are some useful insights, but they have not been applied well to CCS policy and development. The early period of social science research also faces topical and methodological limitations. The paper identifies four areas for social science research for this decade of broader CCS applications — researching CCS in the context of decarbonization, tradeoffs, and a just transition; shifting the focus from "whether" to "how" questions around deployment, including benefits and environmental justice dimensions; exploring new approaches to public engagement globally; and researching how understandings of CCS evolve within the current social media and information landscape. [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]