Kind of strange to read that the US under Trump, Saudi Arabia, and Bolsonaro's Brazil blocked the UNEA's resolution "in a precautionary manner in pursuit of overarching goals of sustainability and justice." š¤
On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 12:00:33 AM UTC+1 Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/global-commons-and-environment/early-view-article-clash-geofutures-and-remaking-planetary > > Early View Article - Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary > Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance > Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines > underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance > Author > Duncan McLaren and Olaf Corry > Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy > agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to > collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject > to clashing interests, knowledgeātraditions and geopolitics. Modelling and > technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a > single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but > the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. > Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and > modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing āgeofuturesā: an > idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from > technical and political realities; a situated understanding of > geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a > pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation > such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context > of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering > at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for > geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and > political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that > geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that > deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that > contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also > the future of planetary order. > > Policy Implications > Assessments of the feasibility and desirability of geoengineering > technologies should never be based solely on knowledge produced under > idealised conditions, (e.g. climate modelling or integrated climate and > economic modelling). > Assessments of technologies with global implications should factor in > risks and complications generated by the international fragmentation of > world politics and histories. > Institutional designs for governing geoengineering should incorporate > diverse and situated forms of knowledge as well as involve broad > participation. > Though they sometimes should be treated separately, an overarching > governance framework for both CDR and solar radiation management (SRM) is > needed to avoid deterrence of mitigation ('moral hazard'). > A governance process for geoengineering technologies, separate from > climate governance, should be established at the United Nations Environment > Programme (UNEP). > > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/31fab61e-7e2c-4f0f-87bc-b1d1f35fcb56n%40googlegroups.com.
