1 / 8

‘Opening up’ climate engineering assessment

‘Opening up’ climate engineering assessment. Dr. Rob Bellamy Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford. ‘Closing down’ assessment. Contextual isolation Post-normal science Analytic- deliberative Low reflexivity

jana-pena
Download Presentation

‘Opening up’ climate engineering assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ‘Opening up’ climateengineering assessment Dr. Rob Bellamy Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford

  2. ‘Closing down’ assessment Contextual isolation Post-normal science Analytic- deliberative Low reflexivity Narrow framings Bellamy et al. (2012)

  3. The Royal Society case 4 technical criteria 2 privileged But, 6 permutations AFF/SAI Uncertainty Bellamy (2013)

  4. ‘Opening up’ assessment Assessment needs: context, diversity, reflexivity Deliberative Mapping: an analytic-deliberative method that supports responsible innovation 2 strands, a multi-criteria approach (Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering, Thursday 09:00) Bellamy et al. (2013); Bellamy et al. (accepted)

  5. Criteria development 80 unique criteria 39 criteria subgroups 9 criteria groups Expanded criteria range Expanded criteria depth Bellamy et al. (2013); Bellamy et al. (accepted)

  6. Option performance Uncertainty and variability Mitigation options outperform climate engineering ‘High’, ‘middle’ and ‘low’ performing options Some ruled out on principle Bellamy et al. (2013); Bellamy et al. (accepted)

  7. Conclusions and recommendations A reflective and reflexive framework for assessing climate engineering and other options for tackling climate change A radically different view of option performance: climate engineering proposals are outperformed by mitigation alternatives, with stratospheric aerosol injection performing particularly poorly Future assessments should continue to ‘open up’ to diversity and reflexivity Bellamy et al. (2013); Bellamy et al. (accepted); Bellamy et al. (2014)

  8. References Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. and Lenton, T. (2013): ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926 – 937. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. and Lenton, T. (2012): A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change, 3, 597 – 615. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J. and Vaughan, N. (accepted): Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science. Bellamy, R. (2014): Beyond climate control: ‘opening up’ propositions for geoengineering governance. Climate Geoengineering Governance Project Working Paper 11. Bellamy, R. (2013): Framing geoengineering assessment. Opinion Article, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. Available at: http://wp.me/p2zsRk-9H

More Related