http://www.riskscience.umich.edu/designing-global-deliberation-geoengineering-governance/
Designing global deliberation for geoengineering governance September 18, 2014 Shobita Parthasarathy Shobita Parthasarathy is an associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan Ford School of Public Policy. Her research focuses on the governance of emerging science and technology, particularly those that have uncertain environmental, social, ethical, political, and health implications. Shobita leads the the Risk Science Center Risk Governance Focus Initiative and was recently elected to the Governing Council of the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S). In recent years, prominent physical scientists, engineers, and a handful of policymakers have begun asking governments, primarily in the United States and Europe, to fund research into geoengineering. Geoengineering involves large-scale technologies that are designed to mitigate climate change by either reducing solar radiation (e.g., creating a global dimming effect with sulfate aerosols), or removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (e.g., seeding the oceans with iron particles which may stimulate phytoplankton growth, which will in turn suck up carbon dioxide). In the face of governments that are either unable or unwilling to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, they argue, geoengineering may be the last best defense against impacts of climate change. But we don’t know much about the potential of these technologies, including their negative effects. They could, observers argue, change weather patterns in significant ways and damage land and ocean ecosystems, all of which could have enormous health, social, and economic impacts. And decisions about what kind of research to conduct, even on a relatively small scale, could not only shape and constrain future scientific, social, and policy decisions but also produce risks in and of themselves. Thus, decisions to initiate funding programs and the choices of which research projects to fund are fraught with uncertainty and have enormous potential global impact. As a result, they require careful attention to governance, including who makes these decisions and how these decisions are made. I tend to agree with those who suggest that the governance of geoengineering must include some kind of deliberative component among the world’s citizens, which would gather citizen perspectives and incorporate their insights into policymaking so that they feel that their concerns are considered and represented. The added benefit is that they tend to produce more thoughtful decisions, too. Such approaches are generally better when dealing with complex technical topics because average citizens rarely know much about the issue, because they can elicit nuanced responses, and because they can more comprehensively value the insights that average citizens offer. But incorporating deliberative mechanisms into the governance of geoengineering research and development will not be straightforward. These technologies will have global impact, some are irreversible, and most require intensive maintenance on a global scale. So how should we develop such mechanisms? First, we have to think about who we would include, since it would be impossible to include the world’s population in geoengineering deliberation. At the outset, it seems important to include taxpayers (most likely in the United States and Europe) who would fund the early stage geoengineering research programs. We also need to include those who are likely to be most affected by geoengineering technologies, both from populations most affected by climate change (e.g., island nations like Kiribati and the Maldives) and those most likely to be affected by the risks of geoengineering (e.g., changes to the Asian and African monsoons). And finally, we would want to include populations who would be moderately affected by climate change (and by geoengineering) but who might also have the resources to adapt better. Second, we must remember that many of the deliberative mechanisms developed for science and technology policymaking, such as consensus conferences, were developed in Europe and the United States. Therefore, we have to analyze carefully how they would translate to the countries where we plan to conduct deliberative exercises. Might other forms of deliberation be appropriate? Are there, for example, indigenous forms of deliberation that might be adapted for these purposes? Consider, for example, the case of South Asian panchayats. Local village councils that predate modern democracies, they are composed of elders and settle local disputes. Even today, these panchayats are often considered by local villagers to be more legitimate than formal government mechanisms. Given this, it seems that we would want to incorporate at least some of elements of panchayats into a deliberative mechanism used in South Asia. But of course, any deliberative mechanism used in these contexts should be developed jointly with local populations. Third, we have to consider how to reconcile the recommendations coming from these multiple deliberative sites. Because they will likely use different processes, this may be a difficult task. But, one could imagine an international advisory committee that includes representation from across deliberation sites as well as scientists, social scientists, humanists, business leaders, and NGO representatives, that would perform this work. In sum, given the potential risks and benefits of geoengineering, and the growing citizen engagement (and activism) related to science and technology policymaking across the world, a deliberative approach is necessary. But the technology’s potential global and long-term impact makes the development of such a deliberative mechanism quite challenging. We must, therefore, think carefully and strategically about how to develop and deploy these efforts, with specific attention to the various modes of governance that are deemed politically legitimate across the world. Without such careful attention, it is difficult to imagine how geoengineering research and development will proceed as a potential response to climate change. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
