The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering”
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12929604 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sean Low (0000-0002-3654-5964, Utrecht University, corresponding author), Holly Jean Buck (0000-0001-8940-1238, University of California, Los Angeles) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2020-03-18 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1757-7780 • E-ISSN: 1757-7799 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/wcc.644 |
| OpenAlex | W3012186836 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 17 |
| References cited | 117 |
Sunlight reflection and carbon removal proposals for “climate engineering” (CE) confront governance challenges that many emerging technologies face: their futures are uncertain, and by the time one can discern their shape or impacts, vested interests may block regulation, and publics are often left out of decision‐making about them. In response to these challenges, “responsible research and innovation” (RRI) has emerged as a framework to critique and correct for technocratic governance of emerging technologies, and CE has emerged as a prime case of where it can be helpfully applied. However, a critical lens is rarely applied to RRI itself. In this review, we first survey how RRI thinking has already been applied to both carbon removal and sunlight reflection methods for climate intervention. We examine how RRI is employed in four types of activities: Assessment processes and reports, principles and protocols for research governance, critical mappings of research, and deliberative and futuring engagements. Drawing upon this review, we identify tensions in RRI practice, including whether RRI forms or informs choices, the positionalities of RRI practitioners, and ways in which RRI activities enable or disable particular climate interventions. Finally, we recommend that RRI should situate CE within the long arc of sociotechnical proposals for addressing climate change, more actively connect interrogations of the knowledge economy with reparative engagements, include local or actor‐specific contexts, design authoritative assessments grounded in RRI, and go beyond treating critique and engagement as “de facto” governance. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making
Climate governance · Corporate governance · Economics · Embeddedness · Knowledge management · Management · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Responsible Research and Innovation · Social science · Sociology · Sociotechnical system · Technocracy · Climate Change and Geoengineering · Climate Change and Health Impacts · Computer Science · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Climate Imagineering
Legitimacy and procedural justice
Public attitude toward solar radiation modification
The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering
Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal
Proactive and reactive geoengineering
Undone science in climate interventions
Anticipatory governance of solar geoengineering
Grappling with a sea change
The Slippery Slopes of Climate Engineering Research
Attention, sentiments and emotions towards emerging climate technologies on Twitter
If deliberation is the answer, what is the question? Objectives and evaluation of public participation and engagement in science and technology
Taking it outside
Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance
Strengthening foresight for governance of social-ecological systems
Climate protection or privilege? A whole systems justice milieu of twenty negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies
Advocating afforestation, betting on BECCS
Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process
The Oxford Principles
Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation
The past and future of constructive technology assessment
The politics of anticipation
Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument From Catastrophe
Crafting a public for geoengineering
Geoengineering, news media and metaphors
States of Knowledge
Imaginary politics
The Planet Remade
Dual high‐stake emerging technologies
Innovating innovation policy
When the going gets tough, the tough get going
Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond
Responsible Innovation as a source of inspiration for Technology Assessment, and vice versa
Public understanding of solar radiation management
(Mis)conceptions about modeling of negative emissions technologies
Negative emissions—Part 2
Negative emissions—Part 1
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden
The political economy of technical fixes
Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling
Is bio-energy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) feasible? The contested authority of integrated assessment modeling
Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses
Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”
Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era
Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science
Transdisciplinary co-design of scientific research agendas
Tools of the trade
How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations
Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review
The Sociology of the Future
Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South
Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity
Solar Geoengineering and Democracy
From ‘Go Slow’ to ‘Gung Ho’? Climate Engineering Discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany
Slippery slope’ or ‘uphill struggle’? Broadening out expert scenarios of climate engineering research and development
A mission-driven research program on solar geoengineering could promote justice and legitimacy
Living the global social experiment
Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal
Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power?’ High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering
Climate change and the transition to neoliberal environmental governance
Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK
Public conceptions of justice in climate engineering
Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects
Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future
New frontiers in futures games
A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment
Going rogue? Scenarios for unilateral geoengineering
Map-makers and navigators of politicised terrain
Science for the post-normal age
Perspectives on solar geoengineering from Finnish Lapland
The past and future of RRI
Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering
Framing the Controversial
Command-and-control
Understanding 'anticipatory governance
The IPCC and the new map of science and politics
A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology
Remaking Participation in Science and Democracy
A Sociotechnical Framework for Governing Climate Engineering
Opening Up" and "Closing Down
The emergence of the geoengineering debate in theUKprint media
Cracking the code
Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research
Beyond solutionist science for the Anthropocene
The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies
The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate
De facto governance
Emerging policy perspectives on geoengineering
A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern
Geoengineering, Scientific Community, and Policymakers
Catastrophism toward 'opening up' or 'closing down'? Going beyond the apocalyptic future and geoengineering
| Unique citing works | 17 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,83 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2024 (5) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 16 |