Suchergebnisse

Despite extensive efforts, greenhouse gases continue to be emitted in vastamounts, with potentially devastating consequences around the world. This iswhy targeted interventions in the climate system, known collectively as 'climateengineering', are receiving increased attention. Proposed approaches are oftendivided into two groups: those intended to remove carbon dioxide from theatmosphere and those intended to reduce the amount of solar energy that reachesthe Earth's surface or is trapped in the atmosphere. There are some similaritiesbetween the two classes of activities, but they often raise different physical,political, and governance concerns. This series provides an introduction to eachset of approaches.

Solar radiation management (SRM) could quickly offset global warming caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Because SRM would have global side effects, it raises not only technological but also political and social concerns. Therefore, SRM research should be accompanied by a global debate that incorporates public perception and concerns into the development and governance of the technology. Our paper provides insight into public perception and explores its underlying patterns using a survey conducted in Germany. The data reveal a differentiated picture. Laboratory research on SRM is broadly approved, whereas field research is much less approved. Immediate deployment is largely rejected. The acceptance of the technology is associated with the belief that climate change is a severe problem and that humans will eventually be able to control nature. It is also determined by the levels of trust in scientists and firms. Among the strongest objections against the technology is the belief that humans should not manipulate nature in the way SRM would. The actual public perception of SRM will, however, evolve along with the ongoing debate between the public, experts, and policymakers.

The paper investigates what kind of economic system would favor research and deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), especially sulfur based stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). The political economy argument combines moral, economic, and political assumptions in order to reach a credible "fitting"-judgement. After presenting some normative ideas on climate ethics, the concept of political economy (PE) is explained. Variants of capitalism are distinguished. These considerations are substantiated by investigating the relation between the U.S. economic system and recent support for SRM, especially for SAI. The paper concludes that the U.S. economic system has strong affinities to SRM supported by an emerging agency network that tries to establish a pro-SRM narrative and launch SAI research initiatives. There is recent evidence that SRM has found support from policy makers. To supporters of "green" variants of capitalism, the main claims of the article provide reasons against SAI-research. The article finishes with some remarks why SAI-research should be conditional.

In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging 'social constitution' of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: that the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces.

8 Climate Remediation to Address Social Development ChallengesEthics of Framing and Rhetoric; 9 Insurance Policy or Technological Fix? The Ethical Implications of Framing Solar Radiation Management; 10 Public Concerns about the Ethics of Solar Radiation Management; The Cultural Milieu; 11 The Setting of the Scene; 12 Between Babel and Pelagius; 13 Making Climates; Bibliography; Index; Contributors.

Various geoengineering technologies that would deliberately alter the climate system have been proposed as a way to alleviate risks of global warming. Technologies that would shield incoming sunlight to cool the planet, so called solar radiation management (SRM), are particularly controversial. Considering insights from social studies of simulation modeling and research on expectations in science and technology, I argue that climate modeling has a central role in producing visions of SRM. I draw upon an empirical analysis of scientific research on SRM to examine how a creative play with technological ideas becomes possible through climate modeling. This enables scientists to project and study environmental impacts of speculative SRM methods in virtual experiments and to develop and refine ideas for adjusting sunlight. Hence, while climate models are used to improve scientific understandings of climate system behavior and to anticipate possible environmental impacts of SRM, they also become inventive tools, allowing scientists to envision novel ways of climate control and optimization. Given the importance of simulation studies to knowledge production on SRM, I critically reflect on the challenges that arise when visions about an engineered climate future are first and foremost produced in climate simulations.

In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging 'social constitution' of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: That the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces.

In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging 'social constitution' of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: that the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces.

This paper uses a novel account of non-ideal political action that can justify radical responses to severe climate injustice, including and especially deliberate attempts to engineer the climate system in order reflect sunlight into space and cooling the planet. In particular, it discusses the question of what those suffering from climate injustice may do in order to secure their fundamental rights and interests in the face of severe climate change impacts. Using the example of risky geoengineering strategies such as sulfate aerosol injections, I argue that peoples that are innocently subject to severely negative climate change impacts may have a special permission to engage in large-scale yet risky climate interventions to prevent them. Furthermore, this can be true even if those interventions wrongly harm innocent people.

This paper uses a novel account of non-ideal political action that can justify radical responses to severe climate injustice, including and especially deliberate attempts to engineer the climate system in order reflect sunlight into space and cooling the planet. In particular, it discusses the question of what those suffering from climate injustice may do in order to secure their fundamental rights and interests in the face of severe climate change impacts. Using the example of risky geoengineering strategies such as sulfate aerosol injections, I argue that peoples that are innocently subject to severely negative climate change impacts may have a special permission to engage in large-scale yet risky climate interventions to prevent them. Furthermore, this can be true even if those interventions wrongly harm innocent people.