Another interesting opposition article, thanks Andrew. Unfortunately, the foundational assumption of the degrowth discourse (i.e. that technological capacities and their impacts on the human condition may be held constant for the indefinite future) is fatally flawed.
-- Adam Dorr PhD Candidate University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs [email protected] [email protected] www.adamdorr.com On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > -- 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.
