Governing solar geoengineering research as it leaves the laboratory

Parker, Andy

doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0173

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Funders have the capacity, knowledge, and interest to contribute to governance of research in areas they fund, directly for their own grantees and with varying degrees of indirect influence over other activities in the same area (see Parker (2014), pp. 12-13).…”

Section: Fundersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research

Reynolds

Parson

2020

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As climate change's risks have grown and limits to primary responses become evident, solar geoengineering (or solar radiation modification) has risen in prominence as a potential complementary response. Widespread calls for expanded research have raised objections, based on anticipated links to potential future deployment and potentially harmful interactions with other climate responses. The unique concerns raised by solar geoengineering may warrant governing associated research with more care or scrutiny than other areas, but states have not engaged the issue. Given this, we analyze the potential for nonstate actors to provide governance functions needed to enable, control, and legitimate near-term, small-scale solar geoengineering research. Drawing on the theory of regulatory processes and nonstate actors as well as evidence from other issue areas, we describe six types of nonstate actors in terms of their capacity, knowledge, and interests relevant to governing solar geoengineering research: researchers themselves, the universities or other institutions that employ them, funders, academic publishers, professional societies, and advocacy nongovernmental organizations. We conclude that suitably configured collaborations among these actors can meet the additional governance needs of near-term solar geoengineering research. We consider potential limitations to nonstate governance related to legitimacy, effectiveness, and capture, and conclude that these are not severe under present conditions, but could become stronger if research grows toward deployment. Nonstate governance may even be preferable to state regulation of smallscale scientific activities, offering more flexible early exploration of options with the possibility of later transition into more state-led and legalized governance arrangements.

show abstract

Section: Fundersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These concerns have been forcefully raised to oppose research. In effect, these debates treat it as a proxy for future implementation, rather than a low-risk way to reduce uncertainties and inform future decisions (Parker 2014). The controversy has hindered research and attempts at prioritization and strategic planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research

Reynolds

Parson

2020

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A similarly semantic issue surrounds whether the 2010 decision by the Conference of Parties to the CBD, noted above, is a moratorium. Some scholars call it such [104,122,154,171,[177][178][179][180], but others dispute this characterization [95,115,141,143,166,181,182].…”

Section: Moratoriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless, the results of less research, transparency and cooperation could be poorly informed subsequent decision-making and greater climate change impacts. It is for these reasons and others that some scholars are critical of moratoria [115,147,183,184].…”

Section: Moratoriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals

Reynolds

2019

Proc. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although solar geoengineering (alternatively ‘solar radiation management’ or ‘solar radiation modification’) appears to offer a potentially effective, inexpensive and technologically feasible additional response to climate change, it would pose serious physical risks and social challenges. Governance of its research, development and deployment is thus salient. This article reviews proposals for governing solar geoengineering. Its research may warrant dedicated governance to facilitate effectiveness and to reduce direct and socially mediated risks. Because states are not substantially engaging with solar geoengineering, non-state actors can play important governance roles. Although the concern that solar geoengineering would harmfully lessen abatement of greenhouse gas emissions is widespread, what can be done to reduce such displacement remains unclear. A moratorium on outdoor activities that would surpass certain scales is often endorsed, but an effective one would require resolving some critical, difficult details. In the long term, how to legitimately make decisions regarding whether, when and how solar geoengineering would be used is central, and suggestions how to do so diverge. Most proposals to govern commercial actors, who could provide goods and services for solar geoengineering, focus on intellectual property policy. Compensation for possible harm from outdoor activities could be through liability or a compensation fund. The review closes with suggested lines of future inquiry.

show abstract

“…In the first of these papers on societal issues, Parker [15] begins by noting that a range of prominent commentators, citing numerous risks and concerns, have called for field experiments to be delayed until there is formalized research governance, such as an international agreement. As a piece of pragmatic policy analysis, this paper explores the practicalities and implications of demands for 'governance before research'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%