Bridging the gaps – Summer Schools on Climate Engineering
http://easst.net/?page_id=1467
(sorry for x-posting)
by Nils Matzner and Miranda Böttcher
As the study of climate engineering (CE) is an emerging field involving
a wide range of disciplines, the summer schools described here aimed to
bring young researchers together and help constitute a scientific
community. Since Nobel Prize laureate Paul Crutzen published his
controversially discussed article in 2006 calling for research into CE
methods, technologies involving the “deliberate large-scale manipulation
of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change"
^1 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn1> are being discussed seriously
and the number of CE-studies is steadily increasing. While the first
studies were carried out by atmospheric physicists, oceanographers,
engineers, etc., social scientists, philosophers and ethicists have more
recently begun to enter the field.
The growing number of disciplines involved in researching issues related
to CE resulted in the call for increased interdisciplinary cooperation.
The series of three interdisciplinary summer schools on CE aimed to
encourage such interdisciplinary work, as well as facilitating
communication and cooperation between universities from both sides of
the Atlantic: University of Heidelberg (Germany), Oxford University
(England), University of Calgary (Canada), Carnegie Mellon University
(USA). Early researchers and experienced scientists from around the
world attended the three schools and were able to exchange ideas and
learn from each other. This multiple diversity proved to be very
fruitful, although challenging.
The following report describes the three summer schools on CE, details
the development of the academic discourse, outlines the scientific
debate about if and shows, how CE could be translated into policy.
*Organisation: Communicating and collaborating*
The *first summer school* was held in 2010 at the University of
Heidelberg, Germany where the interdisciplinary research group “The
Global Governance of Climate Engineering“ was initiated in 2009 (it
ended in 2012). More than forty international students and twenty
professors from a wide range of disciplines including Human Geography,
Philosophy, Political Economy, Political Science, Psychology, Law,
Environmental and Climate Physics, as well as Economics met in
Heidelberg at a week long summer school to discuss the wide range of
issues related to CE. Although the focus of the summer school was on the
natural science of climate engineering, several sessions discussed
issues related to the technologies’ regulation and governance. Speakers
included pundits from a wide range of fields, including international
governance expert Catherine Redgwell, environmental physicist David
Keith, atmospheric chemist Thomas Peter, environmental economist Timo
Goeschl, and meteorologists Philip Rasch and Alan Robock, as well as the
man credited with enlivening the CE debate with his seminal essay on the
topic; Paul Crutzen.
In his talk Paul Crutzen stressed his preliminary idea of developing CE
^2 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn2> technologies only as a ‘Plan
B’ in case of mitigation failure, and indicated that the wider discourse
often referred to CE as ‘mad scientists’ ideas. Other speakers also
emphasized the environmental and geopolitical risks involved in the
deployment of CE technologies, especially of solar radiation management
(SRM) ^3 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn3> measures. Alan Robock
(Rutgers University) discussed "20 reasons why geoengineering may be a
bad idea" ^4 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn4> (a frequently cited
paper) and also added some comments on possible positive effects, for
example the positive effect increased CO2 concentration could have on
agriculture.
The various workshops supported interdisciplinary as well as
disciplinary work to pool current knowledge and define research
deficits. Using creative methods such as role playing and group
brainstorming sessions, the school tried to generate ideas, which could
answer hard natural and social science questions related to the
development of CE technologies. For example, the participants in
Catherine Redgewell’s (University College London) workshop were asked to
put themselves into the role of a small island state, scientist,
company, etc, and attempt to define principles for the regulation of
research and development of CE measures. The results were then compared
with the so-called Oxford Principles ^5
<http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn5>, and although many similarities
emerged, it became clear that actors with varying interests also had
differing opinions on levels and types of regulation and governance
needed. The CE field experiments of the year 2012 demonstrated the
strong need for regulation of private interests and patent concerns.
The University of Calgary housed the *second summer school* in 2011 in
Banff, Canada. The more than 48 participants included young researchers
from Europe, North America, China, and Russia. To facilitate the event
major scientists like Edward Parsons (UCLA Michigan), Jason Blackstock
(Oxford Geoengineering Programme), Jane Long (Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California), many professors from Heidelberg
University, and other guests came in addition to the attendees of the
2010 summer school.
After several participants at the Heidelberg summer school had voiced
their interest in more social science discussions, the Banff summer
school reduced the number of natural science lectures in favor of
sessions on the legal, ethical and philosophical aspects of CE research
and deployment. In addition, the organisers attempted to actively
facilitate the initiation of interdisciplinary research projects which
could be developed over the course of the summer school. To assist in
the creation of such interdisciplinary collaborations, several ‘speed
dating’ sessions were organised, after which groups incorporating at
least three varying disciplines were formed. These groups were expected
to develop and present a project proposal to a panel of experts by the
end of the summer school and, ideally, continue working together on the
project after its conclusion. This practical approach led not only to
many productive discussions, and the creation of several lasting
collaborations, but also to the initiation of an online network of young
CE researchers.
M. Granger Morgan (Carnegie Mellon University), professor for
engineering and public policy, elaborated on some interesting problems
regarding international CE policy. In his lecture he outlined that not
all risk analysis and risk management techniques can be applied to every
single CE technology, because there is “no utility for the world.“
Furthermore, if a single nation declares itself a victim of a climate
emergency, urgent deployment would be possible. Therefore, we need
research now, Morgan claimed. David Keith added that it is important to
“squeeze the interest out of SRM”, because of its riskiness. For Edward
Parsons, the inclusion of bad decision-making in policy models could be
a way to think outside the box.
The *third summer school *took place in Oxford, England in 2012 with 54
participants and many facilitators as in 2011. While many of them did
come back, some new researchers from different fields enriched the
discussion. Its central aim was to help young CE researchers to learn
more about the science-policy-interaction, as well as communication with
the media and the general public. To promote more successful
science-policy-interaction, experienced policy advisor Jason Blackstock
organised a session focussing on identifying the type of information
political representatives needed to enable informed decisions on CE. A
skilled BBC journalist organised a workshop to coach young researchers
on giving informative and succinct interviews to the media, and an open
question-and-answer session involving academics, policy makers and the
media facilitated an open exchange of knowledge and opinions.
In addition to the focus on communication with those outside the
academic community, the Oxford summer school included several workshops
to encourage and improve interdisciplinary communication. This included
several very successful peer-to-peer-teaching sessions, during which
natural scientists explained their work to social scientists and vice
versa before the groups then presented to the plenum what they had
learned. Social scientists got a basic understanding of climate
modelling with the opportunity to ask elementary questions while the
ethic course for natural scientists provided exercises in philosophical
thinking. Both groups learned a lot.
With his inspiring talk, Andy Stirling (University of Sussex) brought
insights from Science and Technology Studies into the discussion. He
wanted to widen the perspective of knowledge creation. His talk
explained knowledge creation and the problem of knowing knowledge and
identifying not-knowing. But simple know-how is less important than
know-why. Why should we do research on CE when we see that it is wrong?
Stirling compared CE research with research on torture. No one wants
torture (no one should want that), however, under this condition
research doesn’t make any sense. Research could also be advocated by the
public. The report from Ashley Mercer’s interaction with the public made
clear that the public perception of CE is diverse. After publishing the
results of their survey ^6 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn6> – that
suggest a broad support for CE research (but not deployment) – Mercer
had 15 press interviews. The media interest in CE seems to rise
constantly, notably with a unexpected and relatively high trust in
science concerning a high risk project.
Similarly to at the Banff summer school participants were encouraged to
start new projects or continue work on various collaborations at Oxford.
A group led by Andy Parker (Senior Policy Adviser of The Royal Society)
worked on the idea of a memorandum. Also existing online platforms – the
new Oxford Reference Library
(http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/geolibrary/index/, provided by
Oxford) and the Climate Engineering News Site
(http://www.climate-engineering.eu/, provided by Kiel/Heidelberg) were
able to coordinate the internet news distribution.
*Evolution of the Scientific Discourse*
Over the course of these three summer schools, the group of researchers
involved became larger and more diverse, and the way CE was discussed,
also changed: Rather than mirroring the development of the group by
becoming broader and more heterogeneous, the scientific discourse on CE
became more concrete, as notions were defined and a pattern of concepts
and arguments became well established among the CE research community.
While at the first summer school the participants were unable to decide
on what to call the field they were researching (suggestions ranged from
climate remediation and climate management to climate manipulation and
climate geoengineering), and the debate as to whether it even made sense
to study such measures was still going strong, at the last school
several concepts had become well established among the attendees.
The first and foremost point made by the majority of CE researchers
attending the summer schools (and almost all in the field) is that
mitigation of CO2 emissions must remain the top priority of the global
community. However, the notion, originally emphasized by Paul Crutzen,
about the need for CE as a ‘Plan B’ in case of mitigation failure in the
future has also become well established. It is argued that, as
mitigation is likely to fail in order to prevent dangerous climate
change, research into the risks and benefits of CE technologies is
needed now to allow informed decisions about deployment can be made in a
future emergency situation. The second point made by many members of the
CE research community is that deployment of CE would be extremely risky
and entail environmental and geopolitical side-effects. Therefore,
research is needed. If enough research is done, knowledge can be
improved, uncertainties can be reduced, risks can be quantified and thus
informed decisions can be made for or against future CE deployment.
In contrast to these arguments in favour of CE research, several
counterarguments have also become central to the scientific discourse,
e.g., the concept that continued CE research could potentially
constitute a ‘moral hazard’ by offering the public the idea of an
alternative to mitigation and thereby weakening the incentive to reduce
the CO2 emissions. A second key concern is the idea that research on CE
will put us on a ‘slippery slope’, meaning that the development of
deployable technologies will most likely lead to their deployment. Those
social phenomena were introduced a few years ago and remain a constant
factor in CE discussions concerning climate political options. ‘Moral
hazard’ and ‘slippery slope’ arguments are still not solved and maybe
unsolvable.
Thus, despite a general agreement within the scientific CE community
that research should continue, concerns about the implications of
research remain prominent. These concerns have led to repeated
discussions about the need for regulation and governance of CE research.
To date there is neither a research regulation nor a governance
structure for possible deployment. Edward Parsons suggested taking a
step back to first establish the ability for governance ^7
<http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn7>. Scientific research and
regulation have to be built up slowly and will need to be adapted
constantly.
/How/ the research strategy should proceed is still far from clear. At
the second summer school Ulrich Platt (Heidelberg University) presented
new ideas for CE measures using some methods which are well known in the
discussion, like stratospheric aerosol SRM (SSRM) and cloud brightening.
The question here is: Should research be done with a broader scope or
focused on the most feasible/most efficient/least risky technologies?
SSRM technologies are being described as possibly highly effective as
well as highly uncertain, despite the fact that atmospheric scientists,
volcanologists and other scientists have been working on this idea for
some years. Platt’s concept was to think outside the box and create new
ideas. But still there is no agreement on research priorities.
*Conclusion***
The summer schools have helped to create a network of researchers who
constitute an interdisciplinary CE research community. Various
disciplines and the full range of academic ranks, from students to
professors, came together to discuss a global, high-risk topic.
The ideas about altering the weather and atmosphere were born in
military and grew in science ^8 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn8>,
but even David Keith admits that the most difficult problems related to
CE are social. The summer schools integrated social sciences and ethics
from the start and strengthened their position in the discussion.
Over the course of the three summer schools, the academic CE discourse
became increasingly homogenous, but a consensus on research strategies
is far from being reached. While the notion of anthropogenic climate
change is agreed upon inside of climate science ^9
<http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftn9> the ideas of CE will stay
controversial for a while.
*Endnotes*
^1 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref1> The Royal Society (2009):
Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. London.
Online:
http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/
^2 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref2> There are two main
categories of CE: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation
Management (SRM). CDR methods reduce the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2)
in the atmosphere, allowing outgoing long-wave (thermal infra-red) heat
radiation to escape more easily. SRM methods reduce the net incoming
short-wave (ultra-violet and visible) solar radiation received. See The
Royal Society (2009).
^3 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref3> SRM involves reducing the
amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth by means of a) increasing
the reflectivity of clouds, b) placing reflectors in space or c)
injecting reflective particles (commonly discussed methods focus on the
injection of sulphur particles) into the stratosphere. For a
comprehensive overview see Royal Society (2009).
^4 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref4> Robock, Alan (2008): 20
Reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 64 (2), pp. 14-18/www.facebook.com/groups/263816193653962>
Blog: <redescts.wordpress.com <http://redescts.wordpress.com>>.
^5 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref5> The Oxford Principles of CE
research were originally authored in 2009 by Steve Rayner, Tim Kruger
and Julian Savulescu of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, together
with Catherine Redgwell (University College London) and Nick Pidgeon
(University of Cardiff). In December 2009 these principles were
submitted to UK House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee
on “The Regulation of Geoengineering”. The Committee endorsed the
principles and recommended that they be developed further.
^6 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref6>Mercer, Ashley Megan; Keith,
David W.; Sharp, J. D. (2011): Public understanding of solar radiation
management. In: Environ. Res. Lett 6 (4), pp. 1–9.
^7 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref7> Parson, Edward; Ernst, Lia
N. (2012): International Governance of Climate Engineering. In:
eScholarship – University of California. See:
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/73k076p3.
^8 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref8> Fleming, James Rodger
(2010): Fixing the sky. The checkered history of weather and climate
control. New York: Columbia University Press.
^9 <http://easst.net/?page_id=1467#_ftnref9> Anderegg, W. R. L.; Prall,
J. W.; Harold, J.; Schneider, S. H. (2010): Expert credibility in
climate change. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107
(27), pp. 12107–12109. See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html,
zuletzt geprüft am 15.01.2013.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
