Ambivalent climate of opinions: Tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Center for Social and Environmental Systems Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan;2. Policy Alternatives Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan;3. Center for Northeast Asian Studies, Tohoku University, 41, Kawauchi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8576, Japan;1. European Space Agency, France;2. European Space Agency, The Netherlands;1. Department of Economics, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA;2. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA;3. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA, USA;1. Australian-German Climate and Energy College, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia;2. Sustainability Science Lab, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia;3. School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia;4. School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia;5. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia;1. School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK;2. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK;1. Department of Economics, Georgia State University, United States;2. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, United States;3. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Italy;4. NBER, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Due to the fear of the consequences of climate change, many scientists today advocate the research into—but not deployment of—geoengineering, large-scale technological control of the global climate, to reduce the uncertainty around its efficacy and harms. Scientists propose in particular initiating field trials of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This paper examines how the meanings of geoengineering experimentation, specifically SAI field trials, are reconfigured in the deliberation of the lay public. To this end, we conducted focus groups with Japanese citizens in June 2015 on the geoengineering concept and SAI field trials. Our main findings are as follows: the ‘climate emergency’ framing compelled the lay public to accept, either willingly or reluctantly, the need for ‘geoengineering research’; however, public discourse on SAI field trials was ambiguous and ambivalent, involving both tensions and dilemmas in understanding what the SAI field trial is for and about. Our results exhibit how the lay public wrestles with understanding the social, political, and ethical implications of SAI field trials in multiple dimensions, namely, accountability, controllability, predictability, and desirability. The paper argues that more clarity in the term ‘geoengineering research’ is needed to facilitate inclusive and pluralistic debates on geoengineering experimentation and not to preemptively arrive at a consensus that ‘we need more research.’ We conclude that ambivalence about both the pros and cons of geoengineering experimentation seems to be enduring; thus, instead of ignoring or repressing it, embracing ambivalence is required to keep the geoengineering debate democratic and inclusive. |
| |
| Keywords: | Geoengineering Climate engineering Stratospheric aerosol injection Social experiment Ambivalence Public engagement |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
