Showing posts with label public. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public. Show all posts

Saturday, 2 December 2017

What the COP?

December 02, 2017 CDR , COP23 0 Comments

We need CDR geoengineering,
here's why:

The Climate-Interactive simulations developed by the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, engage the public in climate change discussions. It illustrates the challenges in negotiating a comprehensive agreement that meets 2C agreed temperature increase (COP16) and further 1.5C (COP21).


Rounds 1&2 



During the COP23 simulation, I represented India with four peers, and other members forming: The USA, EU, Other Developed Nations, Fossil Fuel Companies, China, Other Developing Nations and climate lobbyist.

I was apprehensive during the initial rounds of negotiation, it was difficult to negotiate with more developed groups than ourselves, their priorities seemed to be more important, we focused on ensuring economic growth, alleviating poverty and improving living standards in our country, but other groups didn't seem to care. After reporting our pledges, a maximum temperature increase of 2.8C was obtained, an improvement from current pledges, estimated at 3.3C by 2100. But, ultimately we were unable to agree on how to split the funds available to developing countries (India, China and other), and no agreement was made (even the USA was willing to reduce emissions!).



During round 2, all parties pledged a massive 3% reduction in deforestation, use of fossil fuels and increase in afforestation by 2050-2060. But this still did not result in a temperature increase of 2C. 

So why didn't we reach the 1.5-2C? Simply put we need(ed) to act sooner than 2050 and more drastically (fig.1). 
Fig.1 Quotes from scientists and academics in ways we can meet the agreed targets (Source: The Guardian, 2016).

Outcomes

    1. An understanding of why countries' pledge to particular targets.
    2. Allocating power to the public to challenge governments and demand more.
    3. Publicising the progress of global negotiations.

A reinforcing for need for geoengineering in tackling climate change, particularly CDR when meeting challenging pledges.  By no means should we stop aiming to stabilise GHG emissions and diversify away from fossil fuels, but this may not be enough to reverse a prolonged period of climate warming, modelled by Matthews (2006). Lastly, I highly recommend taking part in a COP23 simulation.

In the end, one person can change it all.
(for the good or for the bad, it's up to you)
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 25 November 2017

The Stakeholders of Geoengineering

November 25, 2017 CDR , Geoengineering 0 Comments
Discussions regarding geoengineering are centred around stakeholders, scientists and academics (dominates the hyperlinks used in posts). Today's post focuses on the significance of other stakeholders from the public, policymakers as well as 'expert-knowledge' in making critical decisions about geoengineering (fig.1).

Fig.1 Quote from IAGP showing why stakeholders are important in geoengineering discussions (IAGP, 2014)

Stakeholders

The ongoing debate on how scientists and academics communicate with the public, in a meaningful and engaging manner can be emphasised, through upstream engagement (an approach originally adopted during the development of nanotechnologies and GM crops). By opening a dialogue between 'expert-knowledge' and public views. Scientific bodies (ie. NERC, IAGP), argue that this allows us to 'democratise' decision-making around geoengineering technologies so that research can continue in a responsible manner. 


Upstream engagement is illustrated by the UK government funded SPICE project, a real-world experiment assessing the feasibility of stratospheric aerosol release. The two-way dialogue indicated strong support for public consultation, going on to state that other stakeholders must be involved such as the media, to inform the public and encourage engagement, as well as local governments in decision making (pg.22).

IAGP (2014) engagement concluded:
  1. The public to favour CDR over SRM - as they become more aware of the pitfalls of solar methods.
  2. Though the public largely supported geoengineering, mitigation strategies like scaling-up of renewable technologies are prioritised by the public, NGOs and policymakers.

Considerations

However, this does not mean the public views are listened to, concerning research development or policies implemented (fig.2). For instance, the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRGMI) adopted upstream engagement in developing nations in 2010. But, public views from these communities were reported to be insignificant (IAGP, 2014). 
Fig.2 Screenshot from lessons for future practices of upstream engagement (NERC & Sciencewise, 2014)
The overuse of the media in public engagement was cautioned by SPICE participants stating the risk of manipulation and even sensationalism of geoengineering. Which may have massive ramifications in geoengineering development because of 'fake news' (ie. Chemtrails conspiracy), or heavy backlash from NGOs like Greenpeace.


Policymakers also have a considerable role in geoengineering decisions. Simulations show that if SRM methods are implemented globally and interrupted (ie. terrorism/conflict), it would result in even more drastic warming than today. Present-day governance approaches to geoengineering do not address the following critical questions and are illustrated by the top-down governance of the Arctic (fig.3). 

Who owns it?
Who will be responsible if things go wrong?
Who will profit from it?
                                                                                (IAGP (2014) from five important questions)  

Fig.3 Case study of how we could govern Arctic geoengineering (blue) existing Arctic Council (green) new international organisation based on Keith et al. (2010) and critiqued and sourced from Parthasarathy et al. (2010)

Conclusions

Including public, NGOs and policymaker views into decision-making about emerging geoengineering technologies are important, ensuring development occurs responsibly and considers the ethical, societal and unknown implications of the technology, in the early stages of development. However, views from 'non-technical' individuals may not necessarily be listened to over 'expert-knowledge', but this does not mean they should not get involved. The public can lobby or support current geoengineering developments shaping how it is governed in a sustainable way.

.

Climate change is an all-encompassing issue, that will affect us all.
- No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,