‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change

Abstract

Geoengineering, especially its potentially fast and high‐leverage versions, is often justified as a necessary response to possible future climate emergencies. In this article, we take the notion of ‘necessity’ in international law as a starting point in assessing how rapid, high‐leverage geoengineering might be justified legally. The need to specify reliably ‘grave and imminent peril’ makes such a justification difficult because our scientific ability to predict abrupt climate change, for example, as tipping elements, is limited. The time it takes to establish scientific consensus as well as policy acceptance restricts the scope for effective forewarning and so pre‐emptive justifications for geoengineering become more tempting. While recognizing that dangerous, large‐scale impacts of climate change is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid, the pre‐emptive, emergency frame is problematic. We suggest that arguments from emergency operate on a high level of uncertainty and tend toward hubristic attempts to shape the future, as well as tending to close down rather than open up space for deliberation. We conclude that the emergency frame is not likely to go away, that ignoring or repressing it is a dangerous response, and that more effort is required to defuse and disarm emergency rhetoric. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:281–290. doi: 10.1002/wcc.263 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering

“…Medical terms like 'inject' are likely to prime this particular conceptual interpretation, and this may have impacted on participants' responses. This study has only examined one popular framing device used to communicate about geoengineering-future research could focus on others, such as the idea that geoengineering is a response to a 'climatic emergency' (Markusson et al 2013b). However, it has provided the first experimental evidence that even a subtle difference in the wording of information about geoengineering can influence subsequence judgements of favourability.…”

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

“…(Keith and Irvine 2016: 549) Early justifications for research on solar geoengineering tended to center on the need to be prepared for its use in the event of a potential climate emergency. Several studies have analyzed the prominence of this framing (Markusson et al 2014;Bellamy et al 2012;Nerlich and Jaspal 2012;Gardiner 2013;Cairns and Stirling 2014). More recently, however, ''climate risk management'' has become a prominent frame for evaluating the pros and cons of solar geoengineering research among technical experts and advocates of research, as well as by prominent science advisory bodies (NAS 2015: 2; Keith 2017; Long 2016).…”

The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change

“…Citing James Lovelock’s conclusion that climate change means that it may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while, Hulme (2014: 136) argues that SRM ‘is indeed a project which runs the risk of putting democracy on hold – or of presenting it with a challenge to which democracy is unable to respond, which is equally concerning’. The insurance metaphor in Reluctant Geoengineering invokes the possibility of future calamity and emergency to justify climate engineering (for a critique, see Markusson et al, 2014). …”