Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: An experimental deliberative approach

Bellamy, Rob; Lezaun, Javier; Palmer, James

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.004

Cited by 64 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The identified organisational dimensions could be applied to a growing body of scholarship on multi-sited ethnography to examine large-scale meetings and distributed events (Campbell et al 2014) as a means of tracing the power relations within and between these organisational spaces. Alternatively, analysing the effects of different organisational dimensions could be examined in experimental work (Bellamy et al 2017) on the effects of prescribed organisational dimensions on the outcomes of co-production activities. Furthermore, while often focused on human participants, the examination of organisational dimensions might equally be developed into analyses that take into account non-human actors in the practice of co-production (Latour 2004).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As demonstrated in IPBES, frameworks of deliberation are typically difficult to prescribe from the outset, and tend to emerge depending on the participants and the process that they are involved in (van den Hove 2006). Yet, frameworks of deliberation are key organisational dimensions, defining the way in which participants relate to one another and the outcomes that are produced (Bellamy et al 2017). They can therefore act as a hidden reservoir of power for some participants.…”

Section: Deliberation In Ipbesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Co-production in action: perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process

Montana

2019

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Opening up knowledge-action systems to a wider range of disciplinary and societal actors is considered to be a necessary step in achieving transformative change for sustainability. In science for sustainability, there is a growing body of experience and literature of putting this 'co-production' into action. However, there is an opportunity to strengthen the application of analytical resources for more explicitly recognising and accounting for the power relations embedded in these initiatives. This paper deploys social theory from science and technology studies to develop an approach to perceive power relations between the participants, processes and products of co-production. This necessitates paying attention to the multiple and distributed organisational spaces where co-production takes place to discern: who participates; who (and what) is represented; how deliberations are structured; and how outcomes are circulated. This paper shows that these organisational dimensions of participation, representation, deliberation, and circulation not only give structure to co-productive forums, but can also define the power relations between their participants, processes and products. The paper then illustrates the applicability of this approach using the case of a current global expert process for biodiversity: The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This case study offers insights on the challenges and opportunities for designing and evaluating co-production initiatives for sustainability.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Deliberation In Ipbesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-production in action: perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process

Montana

2019

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where models in typical deliberative workshops have been one-off events that assume a deliberative democratic constitution, recent work by Bellamy et al (2017) has experimented with deliberately constructing more centralized, competitive, and consensual modes of deliberation and exploring how these different "atmospheres" shape public views on the governance of climate geoengineering technologies. Work that actively experiments with the formats of energy participation is also emerging in practice theory.…”

Section: Reflexive and Experimental Energy Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Democracies and Publics in the Making: A Relational Agenda for Research and Practice

Chilvers

Pallett

2018

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mainstream approaches to energy democracy and public engagement with energy transitions tend to adopt specific, pre-given meanings of both "democracy" and "publics." Different approaches impose prescriptive assumptions about the model of participation, the identity of public participants, and what it means to participate well. The rigidity of many existing approaches to energy participation is increasingly being challenged by the ever-multiplying diversity of ways in which citizens participate in energy systems, as consumers in energy markets, protesters against new infrastructures and technologies, as initiators of community energy projects, and as subjects of behavior change interventions, amongst others. This paper is concerned with growing areas of scholarship which seek to understand and explore these emerging energy publics and forms of energy democracy from a relational perspective. Such work, grounded in constructivist and relational ontologies, views forms of participatory democracy and publics as being co-produced, constructed, and emergent through the performance of collective practices. It pays closer attention to power relations, politics, materiality, exclusions, and effects in both understanding and intervening in the making of energy democracy. This in turn shifts the focus from studying discrete unitary forms of "energy democracy" to one of understanding interrelations between multiple diverse energy democracies in wider systems. In this paper, we chart these developments and explore the significant challenges and potential contributions of relational approaches to furthering the theories, methods, and practices of energy democracy and energy public engagement. The paper draws on an expert workshop, and an accompanying review, which brought together leading proponents of contending relational approaches to energy participation in direct conversation for the first time. We use this as a basis to explore tensions between these approaches and set out a relational agenda for energy democracy research in terms of: developing concepts and theories; methodological and empirical challenges; and implications for practices of governance and democratic engagement with energy transitions.

show abstract

“…However, even if all national commitments to curb emissions will be implemented, the 2 °C target will likely be exceeded significantly (Rogelj et al, ). The discussion around alternative approaches based on climate engineering—the anthropogenic large‐scale modification of the Earth's climate to mitigate global warming (Bellamy et al, ; Keith, ; Talberg et al, )—is highly controversial (Blackstock & Long, ; Givens, ; Hamilton, ). Nevertheless, with the prospect of insufficient emission reductions, the scientific examination of climate engineering strategies appears advisable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sea Ice Targeted Geoengineering Can Delay Arctic Sea Ice Decline but not Global Warming

Zampieri

Goessling

2019

Earth's Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To counteract global warming, a geoengineering approach that aims at intervening in the Arctic ice-albedo feedback has been proposed. A large number of wind-driven pumps shall spread seawater on the surface in winter to enhance ice growth, allowing more ice to survive the summer melt. We test this idea with a coupled climate model by modifying the surface exchange processes such that the physical effect of the pumps is simulated. Based on experiments with RCP 8.5 scenario forcing, we find that it is possible to keep the late-summer sea ice cover at the current extent for the next ∼60 years. The increased ice extent is accompanied by significant Arctic late-summer cooling by ∼1.3 K on average north of the polar circle (2021-2060). However, this cooling is not conveyed to lower latitudes. Moreover, the Arctic experiences substantial winter warming in regions with active pumps. The global annual-mean near-surface air temperature is reduced by only 0.02 K (2021-2060). Our results cast doubt on the potential of sea ice targeted geoengineering to mitigate climate change. contributed equally to this work. Key Points: • Sea ice targeted geoengineering allows to keep the late-summer sea ice cover at the current extent for the next ∼60 years • The Arctic summer cooling is not conveyed to lower latitudes and comes at the price of Arctic winter warming • Our results cast doubt on the potential of Arctic Ice Management to mitigate climate change Supporting Information: • Supporting Information S1

show abstract

Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: An experimental deliberative approach

Cited by 64 publications

References 33 publications

Co-production in action: perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process

Co-production in action: perceiving power in the organisational dimensions of a global biodiversity expert process

Energy Democracies and Publics in the Making: A Relational Agenda for Research and Practice

Sea Ice Targeted Geoengineering Can Delay Arctic Sea Ice Decline but not Global Warming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About