http://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/miscellaneous/american-university-forum-climate-engineering-assessment

American University — Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment

Organization Name  - Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment
Award Date  - 5/2016
Grant Amount  - $76,234
Purpose  - To support the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment to
hold a third meeting for its climate engineering working group.

Published: May 2016

Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment staff reviewed this page
prior to publication.

The Open Philanthropy Project awarded a grant of $76,234 to the Forum
for Climate Engineering Assessment (FCEA) to fund a convening of its
academic working group on climate engineering governance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

The cause
The organization

About the grant

Proposed activities
Risks and reservations

Plans for learning and follow-up

Goals for the grant
Follow-up expectations

Our process
Sources

Background

The cause

This grant falls within our work on governance of solar radiation
management (a form of geoengineering, also called climate
engineering), which has been an area of interest for us within global
catastrophic risks (though not one of our primary focus areas).

Last year, we made a grant to the Solar Radiation Management
Governance Initiative (SRMGI), the only group we are aware of, besides
FCEA, that is actively working on building capacity around governance
of geoengineering.

The organization

FCEA is a group based at American University that works on governance
of climate engineering. It has assembled aworking group on governance
of climate engineering1 that includes academics from various fields
and countries (primarily the U.S., but also the Netherlands, Brazil,
China, and Germany). The first convening of this working group was
held in March, and FCEA plans to hold a second in September. This
grant is intended to fund a third meeting, which FCEA plans to hold in
early 2017.

As an organization, FCEA does not definitively support or oppose the
use of climate engineering technology. Its aim instead is to increase
and improve conversation around the issue. On its website, FCEA states
that its “public outreach efforts are guided by the observation that,
to date, the conversation about climate engineering’s development,
deployment, and implications has been confined to a relatively narrow
set of voices. Our goal is to generate space for perspectives from
civil society actors and the wider public, to produce a heightened
level of engagement around issues of justice, agency, and inclusion.”2

About the grant

Proposed activities

FCEA plans for its 2017 working group meeting to focus on discovering
potential lessons from the governance of other emerging technologies
that could be applied to climate engineering. Dr. Simon Nicholson
(FCEA’s Co-Executive Director) told us that the main fields that FCEA
would like to have represented at the conference are biotechnology,
artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, and nanotechnology.

Risks and reservations

Two potential risks of work on geoengineering that we have seen
discussed in the field are:

“Technological lock-in,” i.e. the possibility that increased
geoengineering research may help build a constituency in support of
it, which may make geoengineering more likely to eventually be used
regardless of how beneficial it is.
The possibility that increased discussion of or research into
geoengineering may lead to lessened focus on other climate change
mitigation efforts (e.g. reducing CO2 output). However, it has also
been suggested that raising the possibility of using geoengineering
may cause people to take other mitigation efforts moreseriously.

Overall, we do not believe that building geoengineering governance
capacity (as distinct from supporting scientific research into
geoengineering) is likely to significantly affect either of the above
risks.

In general, we believe there is a significant chance that supporting a
convening of a working group will not end up significantly affecting
the broader field. We see this as a risk inherent to this type of
diffuse, non-directed field-building work.

We also believe that grantmaking in this area carries some risk to our
reputation, as we discussed in our write-up of our grant to SRMGI:

In addition, we are aware that both geoengineering broadly and SRM
specifically are controversial topics. We see some risk that any
involvement with these fields may cause reputational damage to the
Open Philanthropy Project, even in cases (such as this grant) where we
do not intend to show support for the underlying technology. This risk
is not specific to this grant.

Plans for learning and follow-up

Goals for the grant

One role that we believe philanthropy is particularly well-suited to
play is helping to position groups and individuals to examine problems
and discuss potential solutions before those problems become urgent.
We hope that this FCEA convening will serve as part of a gradual
process by which discussing and considering climate engineering
becomes more accepted, making it more likely that the global community
will have an in-depth understanding of technological options and risks
in the event that climate engineering is seriously considered as an
approach to reducing harms from climate change at some point in the
future.

In concrete terms, we hope to support a well-run conference on the
topic of governance of emerging technologies. We hope that FCEA will
share any ideas or conclusions that the conference produces in some
form.

Follow-up expectations

We expect to have a conversation with FCEA staff after the 2017
conference, with public notes if the conversation warrants it. We also
plan to attempt a more holistic and detailed evaluation of the grant’s
performance (based in part on our own impressions of the conference,
if we are able to attend).

Our process

We first had contact with FCEA in mid-2015, while working on our
shallow investigation of SRMGI. Dr. Nicholson approached us in early
2016 to ask us to consider funding this convening.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to