16.08.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Parson, Edward A. (2017): Opinion. Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering

Parson, Edward A. (2017): Opinion. Climate policymakers and assessments must get serious about climate engineering. In PNAS 4, p. 201713456. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713456114.

"Furthermore, the large-scale use of CE is probably essential for achieving prudent climate-change limits, including the Paris target of limiting the average global temperature rise to 1.5–2.0 °C. This conclusion appears unavoidable based on the current level of global greenhouse-gas emissions and the long time-constants of the climate system and the human energy system (e.g., the long atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide and the time required for large-scale deployment of new technologies). CE may also enable integrated climate-response strategies that reduce risks in ways not otherwise achievable."

LINK


Read more »

02.08.2017

# Media

0 Comments

FCEA Blog: Building a Climate Engineering Clearinghouse

"On July 18, 2017, the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace convened a meeting of experts in CE science and governance, transparency, and information visualization to discuss designing, implementing, and maintaining a CE clearinghouse. A research registry, database, or clearinghouse is often cited as a necessary transparency mechanism in the governance of CE research. This workshop, building on a 2015 meeting on disclosure mechanisms for solar radiation management convened in Ottawa was designed to move such a clearinghouse from principle to practice."

LINK


Read more »

01.08.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Corry, Olaf (2017): The international politics of geoengineering. The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change

Corry, Olaf (2017): The international politics of geoengineering. The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. In Security Dialogue 48 (4), pp. 297–315. DOI: 10.1177/0967010617704142.

"This article puts forward what it calls the ‘security hazard’ and argues that this could be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, ultimately, to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of geoengineering rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a generally pacific international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered world weather events become something certain states can be made directly responsible for, this may also negatively affect prospects for ‘Plan A’, i.e. an effective global agreement on mitigation."

LINK


Read more »

29.07.2017

# Media

0 Comments

CBC radio: Who should be in charge of geoengineering our planet?

"The Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative is trying to start the debate around geoengineering now so we're ready if and when we need to deploy it."

LINK


Read more »

21.07.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Pasztor, Janos; et al. (2017): How to govern geoengineering?

Pasztor, Janos; Scharf, Cynthia; Schmidt, Kai-Uwe (2017): How to govern geoengineering? In: Science 357 (6348), S. 231. DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6794.

"The Paris Agreement aims to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5° to 2°C above preindustrial temperature, but achieving this goal requires much higher levels of mitigation than currently planned. This challenge has focused greater attention on climate geoengineering approaches, which intentionally alter Earth's climate system, as part of an overall response starting with radical mitigation. Yet it remains unclear how to govern research on, and potential deployment of, geoengineering technologies."

LINK


Read more »

04.07.2017

# Media

0 Comments

Environmental Guru: Geoengineering Research Governance Project (GRGP) Oxford Workshop on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research

"In this blog post, I will discuss recent developments in our Geoengineering Research Governance Project (GRGP), by providing an update on our GRGP Code of Conduct Workshop held at the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford on 21-23 June 2017. I will describe the objectives and format of the workshop, reflect on some of the insights gained from this meeting, and then outline next steps for the project."

LINK


Read more »

30.06.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Morrow, David R. (2017): International Governance of Climate Engineering. A Survey of Reports on Climate Engineering, 2009-2015

Morrow, David R. (2017): International Governance of Climate Engineering. A Survey of Reports on Climate Engineering, 2009-2015 (FCEA Working Paper Series, 001).

"These two kinds of technologies generally raise different sets of technical, ethical, social, and legal concerns, leading to frequent calls to treat them separately. Since many of the reports being summarized here address both kinds of CE, this report will do so, too."

LINK


Read more »

28.06.2017

# Media

0 Comments

Carnegie Council: Humanitarians Hope for ‘Risk Management Framework’ on Geoengineering – a Carnegie Discussion

"In February 2017, I went to a panel discussion on geoengineering for the launch of the interdisciplinary Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Initiative and was impressed by the various perspectives on show. The initiative provides a space for nurturing resources to support the still-embryonic debate on the subject."

LINK


Read more »

28.06.2017

# Media

0 Comments

SciDevNet: Africa’s R&D voice needed on use of solar engineering

"Experts discuss solar radiation management (SRM) governance in Kenya. They add that more R&D on SRM is needed in Africa to help address climate change. But an expert says that Africa cannot fund SRM tech because it is costly."

LINK


Read more »

18.06.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Zelli, Fariborz; et al. (2017): Institutional complexity and private authority in global climate governance. The cases of climate engineering, REDD+ and short-lived climate pollutants

Zelli, Fariborz; Möller, Ina; van Asselt, Harro (2017): Institutional complexity and private authority in global climate governance. The cases of climate engineering, REDD+ and short-lived climate pollutants. In: Environmental Politics 26 (4), S. 669–693. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1319020 

"How and why do institutional architectures, and the roles of private institutions therein, differ across separate areas of climate governance? Here, institutional complexity is explained in terms of the problem-structural characteristics of an issue area and the associated demand for, and supply of, private authority. These characteristics can help explain the degree of centrality of intergovernmental institutions, as well as the distribution of governance functions between these and private governance institutions. This framework is applied to three emerging areas of climate governance: reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), and climate engineering."

LINK


Read more »