http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983
Journal of Cleaner Production <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526> Available online 2 May 2017 <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526/>, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159> In Press, Accepted Manuscript — Note to users <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983#publication-aip-note> Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective - Barbara Muraca - Frederike Neuber Show more <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983#> ------------------------------ Check for full text access <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617308983>Purchase <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ShoppingCartURL&_method=add&_eid=1-s2.0-S0959652617308983&originContentFamily=serial&_origin=article&_ts=1494530097&md5=8825c3c6c6e616f6cefdfd3f81e9f40f>Get Full Text Elsewhere <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652617308983?showall=true> Highlights - • Critique of technology based on degrowth is applied to Climate Engineering. - • Biophysical (*viability*) and socio-cultural (*conviviality*) criteria are presented. - • Via formalized arguments a critique of Climate Engineering Technologies is discussed. - • Sulfate Aerosol Inj., Bio-energy w. Carbon Capture & Storage, Afforestation analyzed. Abstract Faced with the urgency of climate change, Climate Engineering has been framed as a fast and feasible technological solution. At the same time, however, critique against it is getting increasingly louder. This paper articulates a critical analysis of Climate Engineering technologies from a point of view situated within the degrowth discourse. In the first part two approaches discussed within the degrowth debate are presented: the concept of *viability* based on a biophysical perspective and the concept of *conviviality* based on a socio-cultural approach. In a second step formalized arguments from the point of view of applied ethics are articulated and applied to three Climate Engineering Technologies: Sulfate Aerosol Injection, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, and Afforestation. In a third step, an extended version of the trade-off argument about mitigation versus Climate Engineering solution is discussed from a degrowth perspective: accordingly, within the current dominant growth paradigm, climate engineering technologies might lead to reduced mitigation efforts. The paper follows the argumentative turn in applied ethics and displays a formalization of arguments that can help clarify decision-making and identify the different dimensions at stake. The paper articulates arguments against the deployment of CE technologies and advances a new version of the trade-off-argument based on a degrowth perspective. From the point of view of a degrowth-based critique of technology, the only type of Climate Engineering Technology ethically acceptable would be afforestation under specific conditions -- 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.
