Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity

Abstract

This paper examines how notions of equity are being evoked by expert advocates of more research into solar geoengineering. We trace how specific understandings of equity figure centrally-although not always explicitly-in these expert visions. We find that understandings of equity in such ''vanguard visions'' are narrowly conceived as epistemic challenges, answerable by (more) scientific analysis. Major concerns about equity are treated as empirical matters, requiring scientific assessment of feasibility, risks, or ''win-win'' distributive outcomes and optimizations, with concurrent calls to delimit risk or reduce scientific uncertainties. We argue that such epistemic framings sidestep, inter alia, the inequality in resources available to diverse non-experts-including the ''vulnerable'' evoked in expert visions-to project their own equity perspectives onto imagined technological pathways of the future. These may include concerns relating to moral or historical responsibility and/or lack of agency in shaping the directions of innovation. We conclude that the performative power and political implications of specific expert visions of equity, evoked as a rationale to undertake solar geoengineering research, require continued scrutiny.

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

“…There is a danger that claims of historical responsibility will be 'framed out' via scenario design itself (McLaren 2016). There is also a danger of reproducing expert visions of technological futures, and thereby reducing questions of value to questions of quantified distribution or technological feasibility (Flegal and Gupta 2017).…”

The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience

“…In light of the approaches described above, we explore why scientific projections such as the IPCC pathways not only project visions about technological and economic capabilities into the future, but also (and often implicitly) expectations and images of social order; they constitute 'sociotechnical imaginaries' [13] that shape society independently of whether the promises of the technologies at their core are actually fulfilled [18,23]. We apply this lens to demonstrate that the IPCC is one key institutional site where the expert imagining(s) of climate futures is communally adopted and thus transformed into a collectively held (canonical) vision of our collective future.…”

Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research

“…However, justifying these two extreme responses, and all responses in between, does not necessitate the complete quantification of all uncertainties; it can be argued that there is insufficient knowledge to support decision making, but decisions can be made in light of uncertainty 148 . Any decision regarding SAG deployment will involve a risk-risk trade-off 149 : how do the risks of deploying, including risks introduced by uncertainty, weigh against the risks of not deploying solar geoengineering? Ultimately, this is a question of governance 150 , and determining what objectives solar geoengineering can and cannot achieve is crucial for understanding what governance mechanisms require further development and expansion 151 , as well as what observations are needed to inform those governance mechanisms 152 .…”