Do small outdoor geoengineering experiments require governance?

Sikina Jinnah,Shuchi Talati,Louise Bedsworth,Michael Gerrard,Michael Kleeman,Robert Lempert,Katharine Mach,Leonard Nurse,Hosea Olayiwola Patrick,Masahiro Sugiyama

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn2853

IF: 56.9

2024-08-09

Science

Abstract:Standardized and/or centralized proactive research governance can lessen tensions

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Science of Geoengineering

K. Caldeira,Govindasamy Bala,Long Cao

2013-01-01

Abstract:Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. These increased concentrations cause additional energy to be retained in Earth's climate system, thus increasing Earth's temperature. Various methods have been proposed to prevent this temperature increase either by reflecting to space sunlight that would otherwise warm Earth or by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such intentional alteration of planetary-scale processes has been termed geoengineering. The first category of geoengineering method, solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation management, or SRM), raises novel global-scale governance and environmental issues. Some SRM approaches are thought to be low in cost, so the scale of SRM deployment will likely depend primarily on considerations of risk. The second category of geoengineering method, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), raises issues related primarily to scale, cost, effectiveness, and local environmental consequences. The scale of CDR deployment will likely depend primarily on cost.
The Science of Geoengineering

Ken Caldeira,Govindasamy Bala,Long Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548

2013-01-01

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences

Abstract:Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. These increased concentrations cause additional energy to be retained in Earth's climate system, thus increasing Earth's temperature. Various methods have been proposed to prevent this temperature increase either by reflecting to space sunlight that would otherwise warm Earth or by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such intentional alteration of planetary-scale processes has been termed geoengineering. The first category of geoengineering method, solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation management, or SRM), raises novel global-scale governance and environmental issues. Some SRM approaches are thought to be low in cost, so the scale of SRM deployment will likely depend primarily on considerations of risk. The second category of geoengineering method, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), raises issues related primarily to scale, cost, effectiveness, and local environmental consequences. The scale of CDR deployment will likely depend primarily on cost.
Geoengineering: Basic Science and Ongoing Research Efforts in China

Cao Long,Gao Chao-Chao,Zhao Li-Yun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2015.11.002

IF: 4.746

2015-01-01

Advances in Climate Change Research

Abstract:Geoengineering (also called climate engineering), which refers to large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system to counteract greenhouse gas-induced warming, has been one of the most rapidly growing areas of climate research as a potential option for tackling global warming. Here, we provide an overview of the scientific background and research progress of proposed geoengineering schemes. Geoengineering can be broadly divided into two categories: solar geoengineering (also called solar radiation management, or SRM), which aims to reflect more sunlight to space, and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which aims to reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere. First, we review different proposed geoengineering methods involved in the solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal schemes. Then, we discuss the fundamental science underlying the climate response to the carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management schemes. We focus on two basic issues: 1) climate response to the reduction in solar irradiance and 2) climate response to the reduction in atmospheric CO2. Next, we introduce an ongoing geoengineering research project in China that is supported by National Key Basic Research Program. This research project, being the first coordinated geoengineering research program in China, will systematically investigate the physical mechanisms, climate impacts, and risk and governance of a few targeted geoengineering schemes. It is expected that this research program will help us gain a deep understanding of the physical science underlying geoengineering schemes and the impacts of geoengineering on global climate, in particular, on the Asia monsoon region.
Global Climate Governance in 3D: Mainstreaming Geoengineering Within a Unified Framework

Gabriel Weil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2022.863

2022-05-19

University of Pittsburgh Law Review

Abstract:The failure of conventional climate change mitigation to reduce climate-related risks to tolerable levels has spurred interest in more unconventional—and riskier—climate interventions. What currently sounds like science fiction could become a reality in the not-so-distant future: planes blasting particles into the sky to block the sun, vast deserts covered with mirrors, algae sucking carbon into the depths of the ocean. Scholars tend to lump all these unconventional climate measures together in a fuzzy category called “geoengineering,” and set them apart from conventional climate change mitigation. But the characteristics of climate interferences vary across three distinct dimensions, which the mitigation-geoengineering dichotomy fails to capture. First, interventions operate via different mechanisms, such as altering the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases or changing the fraction of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth. Second, the characteristic duration of interferences varies from several days to millennia. Third, interferences differ in terms of leverage—the scale of climate impact achievable with a fixed investment of resources. This Article argues that global climate governance would be best served by a unified approach that addresses all climate interferences based on these three dimensions. In such a unified framework, influence over multilateral decisions to deploy risky, high-leverage interventions could be used as an incentive to induce greater national investment in safer, more expensive decarbonization efforts. Scientific uncertainty should not deter early action on geoengineering governance; it should be viewed as an opportunity to lock in agreement on neutral principles while national governments remain behind a partial veil of ignorance regarding their interests.

law
Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering

Jesse L. Reynolds,Jorge L. Contreras,Joshua D. Sarnoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.512

2018-02-02

WIREs Climate Change

Abstract:Governance of solar geoengineering is important and challenging, with particular concern arising from commercial actors’ involvement. Policies relating to intellectual property, including patents and trade secrets, and to data access will shape private actors’ behavior and regulate access to data and technologies. There has been little careful consideration of the possible roles of and interrelationships among commercial actors, intellectual property, and intellectual property policy. Despite the current low level of commercial activity and intellectual property rights in this domain, we expect both to grow as research and development continue. Given the public good nature of solar geoengineering, the relationship between the public and private sectors would likely assume a procurement structure. Innovative policy approaches to intellectual property and data access that are specific to solar geoengineering are warranted. These current circumstances also present opportunities for the development of policy and norms that might soon be lost. We consider some possible approaches, and recommend a bottom‐up, primarily nonstate, voluntary “research commons” for patents and data that are related to solar geoengineering. This would facilitate information sharing and limit data fragmentation and trade secrecy. It would also provide an incentive for commons members to pledge to limit some forms of intellectual property acquisition and to assure access on reasonable terms, thereby limiting the need for enforcement. This should help reduce downstream barriers to innovation and to encourage the potential development of technologies at reasonable cost. Such a research commons might also catalyze the adoption of best practices in research and development. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
Actors, legitimacy, and governance challenges facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

Benjamin K Sovacool,Chad M Baum,Roberto Cantoni,Sean Low

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2210464

2023-05-16

Abstract:Institutional theory, behavioral science, sociology and even political science all emphasize the importance of actors in achieving social change. Despite this salience, the actors involved in researching, promoting, or deploying negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies remain underexplored within the literature. In this study, based on a rigorous sample of semi-structured expert interviews (N = 125), we empirically explore the types of actors and groups associated with both negative emissions and solar geoengineering research and deployment. We investigate emergent knowledge networks and patterns of involvement across space and scale. We examine actors in terms of their support of, opposition to, or ambiguity regarding both types of climate interventions. We reveal incipient and perhaps unforeseen collections of actors; determine which sorts of actors are associated with different technology pathways to comprehend the locations of actor groups and potential patterns of elitism; and assess relative degrees of social acceptance, legitimacy, and governance.
Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update

J G Shepherd

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0186

2012-09-13

Abstract:The climate change that we are experiencing now is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities, including burning fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation. There is now widespread belief that a global warming of greater than 2(°)C above pre-industrial levels would be dangerous and should therefore be avoided. However, despite growing concerns over climate change and numerous international attempts to agree on reductions of global CO(2) emissions, these have continued to climb. This has led some commentators to suggest more radical 'geoengineering' alternatives to conventional mitigation by reductions in CO(2) emissions. Geoengineering is deliberate intervention in the climate system to counteract man-made global warming. There are two main classes of geoengineering: direct carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that aims to cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. The findings of the review of geoengineering carried out by the UK Royal Society in 2009 are summarized here, including the climate effects, costs, risks and research and governance needs for various approaches. The possible role of geoengineering in a portfolio of responses to climate change is discussed, and various recent initiatives to establish good governance of research activity are reviewed. Key findings include the following.- Geoengineering is not a magic bullet and not an alternative to emissions reductions. - Cutting global greenhouse gas emissions must remain our highest priority. (i) But this is proving to be difficult, and geoengineering may be useful to support it. - Geoengineering is very likely to be technically possible. (i) However, there are major uncertainties and potential risks concerning effectiveness, costs and social and environmental impacts. - Much more research is needed, as well as public engagement and a system of regulation (for both deployment and for possible large-scale field tests). - The acceptability of geoengineering will be determined as much by social, legal and political issues as by scientific and technical factors. Some methods of both types would involve release of materials to the environment, either to the atmosphere or to the oceans, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The intended impacts on climate would in any case affect many or all countries, possibly to a variable extent. There are therefore inherent international implications for deployment of such geoengineering methods (and possibly also for some forms of research), which need early and collaborative consideration, before any deployment or large-scale experiments could be undertaken responsibly.
Solar Geoengineering, Free-Driving and Conflict: An Experimental Investigation

Todd L. Cherry,Stephan Kroll,David M. McEvoy,David Campoverde

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-024-00854-1

2024-03-28

Environmental and Resource Economics

Abstract:As the international community continues to fall short on reducing emissions to avoid disastrous impacts of climate change, some scientists have called for more research into solar geoengineering (SGE) as a potential temporary fix. Others, however, have adamantly rejected the notion of considering SGE in climate policy discussions. One prominent concern with considering SGE technologies to help manage climate change is the so-called "free driver" conjecture. The prediction is that among countries with different preferences for the level of SGE, the country that prefers the most will deploy levels higher than the global optimum. This paper tests the free-driver hypothesis experimentally under different conditions and institutions. We find that aggregate deployment of SGE is inefficiently high in all settings, but slightly less so when players are heterogeneous in endowments or when aggregate deployment is determined by a best-shot technology. Despite persistent inefficiencies in SGE deployment, free-driver behavior, on average, is less extreme than the theoretical predictions.

economics,environmental studies
Small Scale Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Experiments Benefits Solar Geoengineering Research

Long Cao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/n972019-00300

2019-01-01

Abstract:Solar geoengineering, also termed as solar radiation management or albedo modification, has been proposed as a potential means to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. Proposed solar geoengineering schemes include deployment of mirrors in space, increase of low-level cloud albedo, and enhancement of land or ocean surface albedo. One of the most widely discussed solar geoengineering methods is to inject sulfate aerosol or its gaseous precursors into the stratosphere to scatter more sunlight to space, and thus cool the Earth. To date, all studies on stratospheric aerosol injection have been climate modeling, engineering assessments, and social science research (including study of economic impacts, ethical/philosophical implications, governance issues, public perceptions). As an attempt to study fundamental processes related to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, a team of scientists from Harvard University plans to release about 100 to 1000 grams of calcium carbonate particles into the stratosphere at an approximate height of 20 km above the Southwest United States as early as 2019. This experiment, named Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), would be the first field study intended to be relevant to solar geoengineering. Nature selected ten favorite feature stories in 2018: One of them is "First Sun-dimming experiment will test a way to cool Earth", which refers to SCoPEx. Calcium carbonate aerosols, instead of sulfate particles, will be used in this experiment because past research showed negative effect of sulfate aerosols on stratospheric ozone. In my view, the SCoPEx experiment is useful in several aspects. First, the direct observation of the fate of injected particles into the stratosphere would help to deepen our understanding of the microphysics (such as aerosol dispersion and aerosol size distribution and evolution) of injected aerosols and the effect on ambient stratospheric dynamics and chemistry. This observation is important for understanding fundamental sciences relevant to climate response to stratospheric aerosol injection. Second, observational results from SCoPEx can be used to bridge the gap between plume-scale and GCM (General Circulation Model)-scale aerosol processes. These results can be used to test GCM-simulated physical and chemical processes of injected stratospheric aerosols, and help improve model's ability in predicting climate response to stratospheric aerosol injection. Third, the insight gained from SCoPEx will not only be useful for solar geoengineering research, but in general provide new insights into our understanding of aerosol microphysics and its climate implication as well. Many useful insights into the climate response to solar geoengineering have been gained from climate modelling studies. However, model representation of climate physics and chemistry, in particular small-scale processes, rely on real world observations. Field experiments like SCoPEx will provide new opportunities for understanding climate response to stratospheric aerosol injection.
Social science research to inform solar geoengineering

Tyler Felgenhauer,Massimo Tavoni,Mariia Belaia,Arunabha Ghosh,Garth Heutel,Daniel Heyen,Joshua Horton,David Keith,Christine Merk,Juan Moreno-Cruz,Katharine Ricke,Wilfried Rickels,Soheil Shayegh,Wake Smith,Simone Tilmes,Gernot Wagner,Joseph E. Aldy,William A. Pizer,Mark E. Borsuk,Jesse L. Reynolds,Jonathan B. Wiener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj6517

IF: 56.9

2021-11-12

Science

Abstract:What are the benefits and drawbacks, and for whom?

multidisciplinary sciences
Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research

David R Morrow,Robert E Kopp,Michael Oppenheimer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045106

IF: 6.7

2009-10-01

Environmental Research Letters

Abstract:Climate engineering (CE), the intentional modification of the climate in order to reduce the effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, is sometimes touted as a potential response to climate change. Increasing interest in the topic has led to proposals for empirical tests of hypothesized CE techniques, which raise serious ethical concerns. We propose three ethical guidelines for CE researchers, derived from the ethics literature on research with human and animal subjects, applicable in the event that CE research progresses beyond computer modeling. The Principle of Respect requires that the scientific community secure the global public's consent, voiced through their governmental representatives, before beginning any empirical research. The Principle of Beneficence and Justice requires that researchers strive for a favorable risk?benefit ratio and a fair distribution of risks and anticipated benefits, all while protecting the basic rights of affected individuals. Finally, the Minimization Principle requires that researchers minimize the extent and intensity of each experiment by ensuring that no experiments last longer, cover a greater geographical extent, or have a greater impact on the climate, ecosystem, or human welfare than is necessary to test the specific hypotheses in question. Field experiments that might affect humans or ecosystems in significant ways should not proceed until a full discussion of the ethics of CE research occurs and appropriate institutions for regulating such experiments are established.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Jutta Wieding,Jessica Stubenrauch,Felix Ekardt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858

IF: 3.9

2020-10-25

Sustainability

Abstract:: Most scenarios on instruments limiting global warming in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit of the Paris Agreement rely on overshooting the emissions threshold, thus requiring the application of negative emission technologies later on. Subsequently, the debate on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) (frequently subsumed under “geoengineering”) has been reinforced. Yet, it does not determine normatively whether those are legally valid approaches to climate protection. After taking a closer look at the scope of climate scenarios and SRM methods compiling current research and opinions on SRM, this paper analyses the feasibility of geoengineering and of SRM in particular under international law. It will be shown that from the perspective of human rights, the Paris Agreement, and precautionary principle the phasing-out of fossil fuels and the reduction in consumption of livestock products as well as nature-based approaches such as sustainable—and thus climate and biodiversity-smart—forest, peatland, and agricultural management strongly prevail before geoengineering and atmospheric SRM measures in particular. However, as all of the atmospheric SRM methods are in their development phase, governance options to effectively frame further exploration of SRM technologies are proposed, maintaining that respective technologies thus far are not a viable means of climate protection.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,green & sustainable science & technology
Crop Yields in a Geoengineered Climate

J. Pongratz,D. B. Lobell,L. Cao,K. Caldeira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1373

IF: 30.7

2012-01-01

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Deflection of sunlight could compensate for the warming induced by increased greenhouse gases. However, the effects of such geoengineering on food security are highly uncertain. Now research using high-carbon-dioxide, geoengineering and control climate simulations suggests that solar-radiation management in a high-carbon-dioxide world generally causes crop yields to increase.
Environmental Governance As A Point Of Departure

Oran R. Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262035934.003.0002

2017-01-01

Abstract:Governance is a social function centered on steering societies away from collectively undesirable outcomes and toward collectively desirable outcomes. Governance systems (often referred to as regimes) are social institutions that arise to respond to needs for governance. Conventional thinking about governance assumes that governments will take the lead in addressing needs for governance. But the presence of a government is not sufficient to ensure that such needs are fulfilled; governance failure is a common phenomenon in most social settings. Even more important, the presence of a government in the conventional sense is not necessary to meet needs for governance in many settings. This opens up the topic of governance without government as an important subject for research. Many studies have shown that smallscale societies are able to devise regimes to meet needs for governance to avoid problems like the tragedy of the commons. Now, we need to analyze whether governance without government is feasible in largescale settings like international society. Cases such as the successful effort to devise a regime to phase out ozone depleting substances provide a basis for hope in this realm. But problems like avoiding climate change and minimizing the loss of biological diversity pose more serious challenges to the search for governance without government.
Urban Climate Governance Experimentation in Seoul: Science, Politics, or a Little of Both?

Jeroen van der Heijden,Seung-Hun Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087420911207

2020-03-13

Urban Affairs Review

Abstract:Cities are key in urban climate mitigation. Since the early 2000s, a trend of urban climate governance experimentation has been observed in which cities, and especially city governments, are trialing novel governance interventions, processes, and instruments to learn from their development and implementation. This article explores the role of the government of the city of Seoul, South Korea, in a range of local experiments. It particularly focuses on the factors that contribute to the success (or lack thereof) of urban climate governance experimentation. It finds that the city’s government has been successful in developing and trialing some but not all experiments and that the overall results of these are promising in certain areas of city development and use. The article also highlights some less promising results, indicating the fragile nature of urban climate governance experimentation—in both the scientific and political senses of the term.

urban studies
Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes

Lei Duan,Long Cao,Govindasamy Bala,Ken Caldeira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029034

2018-01-01

Abstract:Geoengineering has been proposed as a backup approach to rapidly cool the Earth and avoid damages associated with anthropogenic climate change. In this study, we use the NCAR Community Earth System Model to conduct a series of slab-ocean and prescribed sea surface temperature simulations to investigate the climate response to three proposed radiation management geoengineering schemes: stratospheric aerosol increase (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). Our simulations show that different amounts of radiative forcing are needed for these three schemes to compensate global mean warming induced by a doubling of atmospheric CO2. With radiative forcing defined in terms of top-of-atmosphere energy imbalances in prescribed sea surface temperature simulations with land temperature adjustments, radiative forcing efficacy for SAI is about 15% smaller than that of CO2, and the efficacy for MCB and CCNCCT is about 10% larger than that of CO2. In our simulations, different forcing efficacies are associated with different feedback processes for these forcing agents. Also, these geoengineering schemes produce different land-ocean temperature change contrasts. The apparent hydrological sensitivity, that is, change in equilibrium global mean precipitation per degree of equilibrium temperature change, differs substantially between CO2, SAI, MCB, and CCNCCT forcings, which is mainly a result of different precipitation responses during fast adjustment. After removing the component of fast adjustment, the northward movement of the Intertropical Convergence Zone in response to these forcing agents is tightly related with changes in the interhemispheric energy exchange and hemispheric temperature gradient. Plain Language Summary To counteract the CO2-induced global warming effect, a number of geoengineering methods have been proposed. One proposed method (sulfate aerosol injection) is to inject sulfate aerosols or its precursors (SO2) into the stratosphere to deflect more sunlight back to space. Another method (marine cloud brightening) is to seed low-level marine stratocumulus clouds to reflect more sunlight. A third method, the intentional reduction of the coverage and optical thickness of high-level cirrus cloud (cirrus cloud thinning), could potentially reduce global warming by modifying the longwave radiative effect of cirrus clouds. In this study, we compare the climate response to these three geoengineering schemes that are designed to offset global mean surface warming caused by an abrupt doubling of atmospheric CO2. Our simulations show that to offset the same amount of CO2-induced global mean warming, different amounts of radiative forcing are needed, implying that the efficacy of climate forcing is different for different geoengineering schemes. Also, for the same amount of cooling achieved, cirrus cloud thinning produces a much smaller reduction in precipitation than does stratospheric aerosol injection or marine cloud brightening. Due to the different natures of imposed forcing, these different geoengineering schemes also produce different land-sea temperature contrasts.
Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing

Lei Duan,Long Cao,Govindasamy Bala,Ken Caldeira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083701

IF: 5.2

2019-01-01

Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract:Solar geoengineering has been suggested as a potential means to counteract anthropogenic warming. Major volcanic eruptions have been used as natural analogues to large‐scale deployments of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, yet difference in climate responses to these forcings remains unclear. Using the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Earth System Model, we compare climate responses to two highly idealized stratospheric aerosol forcings that have different durations: a short‐term pulse representative of volcanic eruptions and a long‐term sustained forcing representative of geoengineering. For the same amount of global mean cooling, decreases in land temperature, precipitation, and runoff in the pulse case are much larger than that in the sustained case. The spatial pattern changes differ substantially between these two cases. Thus, direct extrapolations from volcanic eruption observations provide limited insight into impacts of potential stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. However, simulations of volcanic eruptions can be useful to test process representations in models that are used to simulate geoengineering deployments.
Counter-Geoengineering: Feasibility and Policy Implications for a Geoengineered World

Felipe de Bolle,Egemen Kolemen

2024-12-03

Abstract:With the increasing urgency of climate change's impacts and limited success in reducing emissions, "geoengineering," or the artificial manipulation of the climate to reduce warming rates, has been proposed as an alternative short-term solution. Options range from taking carbon out of the atmosphere through carbon sinks and brightening clouds to increasing the planet's albedo through the release of reflective particles into the atmosphere. While still controversial, geoengineering has been proposed by some as a promising and low-cost way of combating climate change. In particular, so-called 'moderate' geoengineering is claimed to be achievable with few potential side effects or other ramifications. However, this paper argues that the effect of moderate geoengineering can easily be nullified by 'counter-geoengineering,' and any impactful geoengineering would require a global governance framework to prevent countries which benefit from warming temperatures from deploying counter-geoengineering. In this paper, we take Russia as an example due to its potential interest in counteracting geoengineering and its significant ability to release a great amount of methane, a viable counter-geoengineering pathway in the short term.

Physics and Society,General Economics,Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics
Community science and the design of climate governance

Liz Barry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03295-7

2022-04-01

Climatic Change

Abstract:Practices developed by the environmental justice movement to address regulatory gaps can be scaled up and applied to climate governance. Community science offers a model of deliberative knowledge production for ill-defined environmental concerns where basic understandings of reality are not shared. The practice of deliberative democracy is currently generating transformative calls to climate action. The cost of participation in both knowledge production and in governance can be reduced through the social and technical methods of facilitation, increasing the realism of calls for more democracy not less. It is an important lesson for science that aims to scale up its governance paradigm.

environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Socio-material governance tensions in nature-based solution experiments: lessons from Turin

Alessandra Manganelli DFG – Research Training Group 2725: "Urban future-making",HafenCity Universität Hamburg,Hamburg,GermanyAlessandra Manganelli is an urban studies scholar with a background in urban governance and planning. Her doctoral research (KU Leuven,VUB,Belgium; Toronto Metropolitan University,Canada) has focused on the hybrid governance of urban food movements in Europe and North America. She has been a consultant for the Committee of the Regions on the European Farm to Fork Strategy (Brussels,2019–20) and her book on urban food movements was recently published by Springer (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-05828-8). Within the DFG Research training group,she is developing a research agenda on urban experimentation,urban environmental governance,socio-ecological transformations,and justice,conducting empirical research in European cities.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2024.2433887

IF: 3.8

2024-12-05

Urban Geography

Abstract:Urban experiments are widely acknowledged as key vehicles for testing and implementing greener alternatives in real-life urban settings. Less studied, however, are the everyday governance practices through which actors involved in experiments attempt to co-materialize change. Mobilizing the concept of socio-material governance tensions, this paper sheds light on how actors engage with barriers but also with opportunities stemming from the social and material realities in which experiments navigate. Through the empirical analysis of Urban Living Laboratories (ULLs) fostering Nature-based Solutions in Turin (Italy), tensions are analysed starting from the strategic choice of intervention sites, moving to the incremental practices of embedding experiments within the social and spatial fabric of the city, then addressing the challenge of leaving a socio-material legacy that goes beyond short-term initiatives. Learning from the empirical analysis, this paper highlights key governance tactics used to navigate tensions; these can inform greening experiments across many contexts. Tactics relate to proactive leadership and conflict management, intermediation, collaboration and facilitation of maintenance practices, improvisational governance, and engagement in the politics of experimentation.

urban studies,geography

Do small outdoor geoengineering experiments require governance?

Science of Geoengineering

The Science of Geoengineering

Geoengineering: Basic Science and Ongoing Research Efforts in China

Global Climate Governance in 3D: Mainstreaming Geoengineering Within a Unified Framework

Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering

Actors, legitimacy, and governance challenges facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

Geoengineering the climate: an overview and update

Solar Geoengineering, Free-Driving and Conflict: An Experimental Investigation

Small Scale Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Experiments Benefits Solar Geoengineering Research

Social science research to inform solar geoengineering

Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

Crop Yields in a Geoengineered Climate

Environmental Governance As A Point Of Departure

Urban Climate Governance Experimentation in Seoul: Science, Politics, or a Little of Both?

Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes

Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing

Counter-Geoengineering: Feasibility and Policy Implications for a Geoengineered World

Community science and the design of climate governance

Socio-material governance tensions in nature-based solution experiments: lessons from Turin