Abstract
Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth’s climate system, known collectively as ‘geoengineering’, have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely ‘close down’ upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first ‘upstream’ appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately ‘open up’ to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic–deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens’ and the specialists’ deliberations, where geoengineering proposals were outperformed by mitigation alternatives.
Highlights
Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth’s climate system, known collectively as ‘geoengineering’, are being conducted in earnest
We examine (1) how the process was contextualised and framed by citizens; (2) the existing knowledges and value frameworks drawn on by citizens in exploring the options; (3) the criteria developed by citizens and specialists to appraise the options; (4) the performance of the core options against those criteria as given by citizens, broadly contrasted with specialists scores and (5) the mapping of option performance according to citizen and specialist rankings
The particular issue of climate change emerged unprompted from both groups’ discussions early on before formal introduction by the facilitators. Both groups engaged in a discussion of climate change through its science and uncertainty as a point of entry
Summary
Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth’s climate system, known collectively as ‘geoengineering’, are being conducted in earnest. ‘Geoengineering’ comprises an array of proposals that can broadly be divided into two types: carbon geoengineering proposals, which seek to remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and solar geoengineering proposals, which seek to reflect a proportion of sunlight away from the earth (The Royal Society, 2009). These types and each proposal within them pose unique opportunities and risk adverse impacts and unintended consequences. Controversies over recently proposed or enacted geoengineering field experiments, such as the test-bed for the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project (Macnaghten and Owen, 2011) and the ‘rogue’ iron fertilisation by the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (Tollefson, 2012), have further intensified these imperatives for public debate
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
