Climate Geoengineering and the Role of Public Deliberation: A Comment on the us National Academy of Sciences’ Recommendations on Public Participation

In: Climate Law
View More View Less
  • 1 American University
  • 2 University of California, Berkeley

The feckless response of the world community to the mounting threat of climate change has led to a growing interest in climate geoengineering research. In early 2015, the us National Academy of Sciences released two major reports on the topic. While it is notable that both reports recommended some form of public participation to inform research, this article argues that the vagueness of these recommendations could mean that their implementation might not comport with optimal approaches for public deliberation. We outline some options for public deliberation on climate geoengineering and important design considerations.

  • 3

    The Economist, ‘Stopping a Scorcher’, The Economist, 23 November 2013; Amy Schaefer, ‘Controversial Plan of "Geoengineering" to Stop Global Warming Could be in the Works’, Inquisitor, 10 February 2015.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    International Energy Agency, supra note 11, at 12.

  • 13

    Climate Action Tracker, supra note 11.

  • 17

    John A. Church et al., ‘Sea Level Change’, in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the ipcc (2013) (likely rise in sea level by 2100 between a quarter and more than three-quarters of a foot). However, a number of more recent reports project potentially far greater rises; see A. Dutton et al., ‘Sea-Level Rise Due to Polar Ice-Sheet Mass Loss During Past Warm Periods’, 349 Science 4019-1-19 (2015) (sea level could ultimately rise six meters even if temperatures only rise 2°C above pre-industrial levels); J. Hansen et al., ‘Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous’, 15 Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 20059–20179 (2015) (sea levels could rise more than three meters in the next 50 years), <www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html>.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Royal Society, supra note 4, at 2.

  • 44

    Russell, supra note 39, at 361.

  • 82

    J. Dryzek, ‘Ecology and Discursive Democracy’, in Is Capitalism Sustainable? Political Economy and the Politics of Ecology, edited by M. O’Connor (Guilford Press, 1994) at 176; Anderson, supra note 81, at 121.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 95

    Anderson, supra note 90, at 122.

  • 97

    Bohman, supra note 84, at 27; Sarewitz, supra note 96, at 414.

  • 100

    Joshua Cohen, ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’, in Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, edited by Derek Matravers and Jon Pike (Routledge, 2003), at 203; Javier Lezaun and Linda Soneryd, ‘Consulting Citizens: Technologies of Elicitation and the Mobility of Publics’, 16 Public Understanding of Science 379, 379 (2007); Patrick Sturgis, ‘On the Limits of Public Engagement for the Governance of Emerging Technologies’, 23(1) Public Understanding of Science 38, 39 (2014).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 103

    John Dewey, ‘The Economic Basis of a New Society’, in John Dewey: The Later Works, edited by Jo Ann Boydston (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988) at 320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 106

    Sebastián Ureta, ‘A Failed Platform: The Citizen Consensus Conference Travels to Chile’, Public Understanding of Science 1, 1 (2015).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 109

    Bellamy et al., supra note 94, at 597–615; Natural Environment Research Council, Experiment Earth: Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering (2010); Nick Pidgeon et al., ‘Deliberating Stratospheric Aerosols for Climate Geoengineering and the spice Project’, 3 Nature Climate Change (2013) 451–457; Adam Corner et al. ‘Messing with Nature? Exploring Public Perceptions of Geoengineering in the uk,’ 23 Global Environmental Change (2013) 938–947.

  • 110

    Seyla Benhabib, ‘Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy,’ in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib (Princeton University Press, 1996) at 87.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 112

    Andersen and Birgit Jæger, supra note 77, at 331.

  • 114

    Cobb, supra note 113, at 1536; Dryzek and Tucker, supra note 66, at 865.

  • 115

    Andersen and Jæger, supra note 77, at 335. Some consensus conference formats provide for a ‘split statement’ if consensus cannot be reached after participants seek to understand the arguments of other participants as much possible. Jon Fixdal, ‘Consensus Conferences as "Extended Peer Review"’, 24(6) Science and Public Policy 366, 370 (1997).

  • 118

    Ibid. at 325; Dryzeck and Tucker, supra note 66, at 867.

  • 120

    Dryzeck and Tucker, supra note 66, at 857.

  • 122

    Karpowitz and Raphael, supra note 116, at 57.

  • 142

    J. Burgess and J. Clark, ‘Evaluating Public and Stakeholder Engagement Strategies in Environmental Governance’, in Interfaces between Science and Society, edited by A. G. Perez, S. G. Vaz, and S. Tognetti (Greenleaf Publishing, 2006), at 222–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 144

    Burgess et al., supra note 86, at 302.

  • 145

    Stirling and Davies, supra note 143, at 3.

  • 147

    Stirling and Mayer, supra note 141, at 532.

  • 149

    Burgess et al., supra note 86, at 302.

  • 154

    Stirling and Davies, supra note 143, at 2; Andy Stirling and Gale Davies, ‘Deliberative Mapping in Practice: The "Kidney Gap"’, Briefing 3, Science and Technology Policy Research (2004), at 2.

  • 157

    Rob Bellamy, ‘A Sociotechnical Framework for Governing Climate Engineering’, Public Understanding of Science 1, 10–13 (2015).

  • 160

    P. E. Converse, ‘Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue’, in The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, edited by E. R. Tufte (Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1970) at 15.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 171

    Pidgeon et al., supra note 91, at 4177 (2012); Bellamy et al., supra note 94, at 598.

  • 173

    Pidgeon et al., supra note 92, at 451; A. Stirling, supra note 1, at 286.

  • 174

    Jack Stilgoe, Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering, (New York, NY: Routledge, 2015), at 36.

  • 176

    Sturgis, supra note 100, at 3; Lisa Dilling and Rachel Hauser, ‘Governing Geoengineering Research: Why, When, and How?’, 121(3) Climatic Change 553, 553 (2013). Indeed, a failure to engender public acceptance of climate geoengineering could prove fatal. As Zürn and Schäfer observe, ‘In the absence of this acceptance, negative social and political reactions are likely to preempt the development of a possibly important technological option to counteract climate change’; Michael Zürn and Stefan Schäfer, ‘The Paradox of Climate Engineering’, 4(3) Global Policy 1, 7 (2013), <www.wzb.eu/sites/default/files/u13/the_paradox_of_climate_engineering_global_policy.pdf>.

  • 178

    Stilgoe, supra note 174, at 3.

  • 179

     See Wynne, supra note 94, at 105.

  • 181

    Stilgoe, supra note 174, at 38.

  • 182

    M. Hourdequin, ‘Geoengineering, Solidarity, and Moral Risk’, in Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management, edited by C. Preston (Lexington Books, 2012) at 27.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 184

    Stirling, supra note 1, at 293.

  • 185

    Corner and Pidgeon, supra note 170, at 33.

  • 186

    Chilvers, supra note 85, at 287; Margherita Pieraccini, ‘Rethinking Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: Epistemologies of Marine Conservation in South-East England’, 27 Journal of Environmental Law 45, 64 (2015) (allegations by fishing industry that it was engaged downstream in the regulatory process of establishing protected marine areas).

  • 189

    Daniel Barben et al., ‘Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnology: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration’, in The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by E. J. Hackett (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008), at 979; David H. Guston, ‘Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’, 44(2) Social Studies of Science 218, 226 (2014).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 190

    Martin Carcasson and Leah Sprain, ‘Key Aspects of the Deliberative Democracy Movement’, Public Sector Digest (July 2010), at 3 <http://lwvncsd.org/files/carcasson.sprain._key_aspects_of_ddm.pdf>; Jenny Steele, ‘Participation and Deliberation in Environmental Law: Exploring a Problem-solving Approach’, 21(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 415, 435 (2001).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 195

    Anderson, supra note 90, at 11.

  • 197

    Sturgis, supra note 100, at 40.

  • 198

    Carcasson and Sprain, supra note 190, at 3; Ian Shapiro, ‘Optimal Deliberation’, in Debating Deliberative Democracy, edited by James S. Fishkin and Peter Laslett (Blackwell Publishing, 2008) at 121.

  • 201

    Young, supra note 199, at 53.

  • 202

    Parkins and Mitchell, supra note 87, at 534.

  • 203

    Kadlec and Friedman, supra note 104, at 12; Williamson and Fung, supra note 111, at 4.

  • 207

    Young, supra note 199, at 57.

  • 212

    Kadlec and Friedman, supra note 104, at 7; Jack Stilgoe, Simon J. Lock and James Wilsdon, ‘Why Should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?’, 23(1) Public Understanding of Science 4, 6 (2014).

  • 213

    Mercer et al., supra note 67, at 6. See also Phil Macnaghten and Jason Chilvers, ‘Governing Risky Technologies’, in Critical Risk Research: Practices, Politics and Ethics, edited by S. Lane, F. Klauser, and M. Kearnes (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012) at 110.

  • 214

    Kadlec and Friedman, supra note 104, at 8.

  • 226

    Davies and Selin, supra note 169, at 120.

  • 228

    Kadlec and Friedman, supra note 104, at 18; Mark B. Brown, ‘Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation’, 14(2) Journal of Political Philosophy 203, 208 (2006).

  • 229

    Stirling, supra note 124, at 269.

  • 232

    Knapp et al., supra note 140, at 54.

  • 233

    Macnaghten and Chilvers, supra note 213, at 116–17; Dryzek and Tucker, supra note 66, at 867 and 869; Corner and Pidgeon, supra note 170, at 35; Goodin and Dryzek, supra note 193, at 227.

  • 239

    Williamson and Fung, supra note 203, at 5.

  • 246

    Sarewitz, supra note 96.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 247 137 4
Full Text Views 154 12 0
PDF Downloads 16 7 0