The New Prometheans: Technological Optimism in Climate Change Mitigation Modelling

Abstract

Technological change modelling (TCM) is quietly transforming the landscape of environmental debate. It provides a powerful new basis for technological optimism, which has long been a key battleground. The technique is at the heart of mainstream climate change mitigation policies and greatly strengthens environmentalism over ecologism. It seems to show that technological change can solve the problem. I argue that the models employ a flawed understanding of technological change and that policies based on them are a major gamble. The article aims to begin a wider debate on TCM, offering a defence of ecologism rooted in the history of technology and SCOT literatures.

Incumbency, Trust and the Monsanto Effect: Stakeholder Discourses on Greenhouse Gas Removal

“…In this way, debates around GGR find similarity with earlier debates on sustainable development and ecological modernisation: in both cases, proponents of incumbent systems argue that a sustainable transition is possible by shifting existing industrial society toward a more ecologically focused mode of production, whereas 'deep green' advocates argue for radical transformation away from the capitalist focus on economic growth (see Dryzek 1997). Applying this to the new debate on technological solutions to climate change and the role of climate models, Michael Keary (2016) argues for an approach that 'would not stake the earth on future technological improvements' (24). This is linked to the topic of mitigation deterrence because GGR is seen by many as a potential opt-out, allowing incumbents to avoid taking difficult decisions or actions on climate change.…”

“…Again, the misgivings revealed something deeper than distrust in the modelling process per se; rather, the concern was that the very questions being asked in the scientific community are defined by a small group of elites, without participation from those who might be most affected by the outcomes. In a similar vein, Keary (2016) argues that climate models employ technological optimism in order to show us that sustainability and economic growth are compatible, while marginalising discourses that might contradict this. McLaren (2016) suggests that this type of framing actually benefits GGR over SRM because GGR may be more compatible with a neoliberal ideology, wherein climate change can supposedly be tackled using technology and carbon markets, whereas SRM represents a far more disruptive challenge to incumbent systems.…”

Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy: The greening of markets, technology, and growth

“…It does so by relying on technology rather than social change to reduce carbon emissions, thereby allowing the fossil-fuel-based economy to continue unfettered. Technological solutions devised to alter social processes that lead to reduced emissions hold great potential (Keary 2016) but simply focusing on technology as the solution to climate change represents an ideological rather than a practical solution. Few proponents of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and/or geoengineering prioritize total energy reduction or technologies that might guide social behaviors in a new direction.…”

The Politics of Decarbonization Pathways: Responses, Conflicts, and the Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy Future

“…Moreover, while a considerable body of work emphasizes the technological and geophysical dimensions of decarbonization pathways, somewhat less has been done to engage with the political domains underlying this transformative pursuit (Geels et al, 2017b(Geels et al, , 2018Keary, 2016;Li and Strachan, 2017;O'Brien, 2018). So, while pathways are increasingly becoming entwined with the pursuit of low-carbon transitions, more can still be done to deepen our understanding of the concept and further capture the multiple dimensions entailed by low-carbon change.…”

“…The first study of this thesis has found that the emphasis is often on formal modelling traditions that have somewhat more difficulty incorporating social and political processes. Others have similarly argued that pathways analysis based predominantly on formal models may not sufficiently engage with the political and social factors that are entwined with transformative low-carbon change (Geels et al, 2017b(Geels et al, , 2018Keary, 2016;Li and Strachan, 2017;O'Brien, 2018). Findings also suggest that there may be dangers if any one perspective or dimension of change is cast too strongly or weakly.…”