Climate Geoengineering Governance
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Oxford
Department Name: Social & Cultural Anthropology
Abstract
The work in this project is grouped around three themes - three sets of understandings which are required to inform decisions on the governance of geoengineering. The set of work packages under each theme is supported by a common set of workshops that will help to integrate the insights from the work package elements, and generate increased engagement with policymakers, practitioners and representatives of civil society as the project proceeds.
1. Framings of Geoengineering. How is geoengineering currently framed in sociotechnical and legal terms? What can we learn about its similarities and differences in relation to the multilevel governance challenges of other complex technologies to emerge in recent times, or from attempts to manage complexity in the financial system in the light of the recent crisis? What are the conceptions of justice and fairness that might be used to frame our approach to its regulation? What current treaties and laws bear upon it? What other broad purposes, other than the mitigation of climate change itself, might geoengineering governance be trying to achieve? These issues are pursued in work packages 1-3 in months 1-6 of the project.
2. Dilemmas of Control of Geoengineering Technologies. What particular governance challenges and opportunities does geoengineering present - in assessing benefits and risks, in terms of public acceptability, in the risks of lock-in and path dependency, in avoiding "appraisal optimism" in assessing the economic case, in appropriate use of precaution in the face of uncertainty, and in international relations - and how might we try to deal with these? How do we see geoengineering working as a system of innovation - who would experiment or implement where, and what capacity building and technology transfer might be involved? Work on these issues comprises work packages 4-7 covering months 7-18.
3. Choosing Governance and Regulatory Requirements. How would governance and regulatory arrangements work in practice both within and between jurisdictions? Can they be sensitive and adaptive enough to respond to changes in impacts or criteria? What new rulemaking and procedural harmonisation would be required, and could the buy-in of various stakeholders be secured? Are the domestic controls in place to address these requirements in a variety of key jurisdictions? Finally, what wider lessons for the assessment, regulation and governance of emerging technologies can we learn from the geoengineering case? Work package 8, covering these issues, would run from months 19-24. It includes scenario workshops with stakeholders in helping to define possible circumstances in which different approaches to geoengineering might be the subject of experiment or deployment, and the governance approaches required.
1. Framings of Geoengineering. How is geoengineering currently framed in sociotechnical and legal terms? What can we learn about its similarities and differences in relation to the multilevel governance challenges of other complex technologies to emerge in recent times, or from attempts to manage complexity in the financial system in the light of the recent crisis? What are the conceptions of justice and fairness that might be used to frame our approach to its regulation? What current treaties and laws bear upon it? What other broad purposes, other than the mitigation of climate change itself, might geoengineering governance be trying to achieve? These issues are pursued in work packages 1-3 in months 1-6 of the project.
2. Dilemmas of Control of Geoengineering Technologies. What particular governance challenges and opportunities does geoengineering present - in assessing benefits and risks, in terms of public acceptability, in the risks of lock-in and path dependency, in avoiding "appraisal optimism" in assessing the economic case, in appropriate use of precaution in the face of uncertainty, and in international relations - and how might we try to deal with these? How do we see geoengineering working as a system of innovation - who would experiment or implement where, and what capacity building and technology transfer might be involved? Work on these issues comprises work packages 4-7 covering months 7-18.
3. Choosing Governance and Regulatory Requirements. How would governance and regulatory arrangements work in practice both within and between jurisdictions? Can they be sensitive and adaptive enough to respond to changes in impacts or criteria? What new rulemaking and procedural harmonisation would be required, and could the buy-in of various stakeholders be secured? Are the domestic controls in place to address these requirements in a variety of key jurisdictions? Finally, what wider lessons for the assessment, regulation and governance of emerging technologies can we learn from the geoengineering case? Work package 8, covering these issues, would run from months 19-24. It includes scenario workshops with stakeholders in helping to define possible circumstances in which different approaches to geoengineering might be the subject of experiment or deployment, and the governance approaches required.
Planned Impact
Much current policy discourse on climate change points to the need to assess the potential contribution of geoengineering approaches alongside mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC has called an expert meeting on geoengineering in June which will involve all three of its working groups, and the field is likely to continue to increase in strategic importance. This project will help the UK to consolidate the leading position it has established through the Royal Society report (Royal Society, 2009) and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's Report on the Regulation of Geoengineering (House of Commons, 2010), to which the authors of this proposal have made significant contributions.
Both reports called for the detailed consideration of the governance issues associated with geoengineering. The Government's response to the House of Commons report concurred that research to develop regulatory frameworks was required (UK Government, 2010). This project addresses in full the policy requirements that the Select Committee identified and the Government endorsed. The research team involves all three members of the Royal Society Working Group who worked on the governance aspects of that report, and all five of the authors of the Oxford Principles that were endorsed by the Select Committee and adapted by the Asilomar International Conference (2010) on geoengineering. The project has been designed to produce results which have high policy salience and impact in a range of ways:
- its agenda develops the Oxford Principles and covers the key policy issues discussed in the debate to date: the efficacy, safety, affordability and acceptability of both experimentation and deployment of each of the proposed geoengineering approaches;
- it establishes baseline knowledge as to how existing laws, treaties and regulatory arrangements bear on the issues, and where the gaps lie;
- it deepens policy choice by exploring the social, economic and ethical positions which underlie governance objectives and examining issues of distributive and intergenerational justice which arise;
- it draws on other ongoing work in geoengineering assessment, notably IAGP (2010) and the SRGI (2010) and from regulatory developments in other policy domains, notably financial services, and contributes to the understanding of the governance of other new technologies;
- it recognises that many geoengineering approaches cross boundaries and require understanding of interactions between local, national and global governance, and analyses capacities and policy perspectives on geoengineering in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas;
- its final stage involves the research team working with practitioners to define policy and regulatory choices. This builds on a set of workshops engaging with governments, commercial and non-commercial proponents of geoengineering, and civil society organisations, initiated by the Oxford Geoengineering Programme with independent sources of funding;
- its five reports - part of a wider set of outputs - will be targeted at those setting and scrutinising policy. These cover:
o Month 8. Use of the reverse stress test in characterising geoengineering proposals.
o Month 9. Geoengineering: Justice, risks and benefits.
o Month 12. Current law and regulation on geoengineering: A comparative study
o Month 22. Potential pathways for geoengineering development
o Month 26. Climate geoengineering governance
The main policy output of this project will be a set of approaches to enable policymakers to craft a geoengineering governance framework. The research will also (a) inform the construction of governance frameworks for future novel technologies as these emerge, and (b) provide insights as to how "appraisal optimism" in costing new technology - a term coined by H. M. Treasury - might be countered. The research teams will additionally use their own networks to strengthen policy engagement around the main findings.
Both reports called for the detailed consideration of the governance issues associated with geoengineering. The Government's response to the House of Commons report concurred that research to develop regulatory frameworks was required (UK Government, 2010). This project addresses in full the policy requirements that the Select Committee identified and the Government endorsed. The research team involves all three members of the Royal Society Working Group who worked on the governance aspects of that report, and all five of the authors of the Oxford Principles that were endorsed by the Select Committee and adapted by the Asilomar International Conference (2010) on geoengineering. The project has been designed to produce results which have high policy salience and impact in a range of ways:
- its agenda develops the Oxford Principles and covers the key policy issues discussed in the debate to date: the efficacy, safety, affordability and acceptability of both experimentation and deployment of each of the proposed geoengineering approaches;
- it establishes baseline knowledge as to how existing laws, treaties and regulatory arrangements bear on the issues, and where the gaps lie;
- it deepens policy choice by exploring the social, economic and ethical positions which underlie governance objectives and examining issues of distributive and intergenerational justice which arise;
- it draws on other ongoing work in geoengineering assessment, notably IAGP (2010) and the SRGI (2010) and from regulatory developments in other policy domains, notably financial services, and contributes to the understanding of the governance of other new technologies;
- it recognises that many geoengineering approaches cross boundaries and require understanding of interactions between local, national and global governance, and analyses capacities and policy perspectives on geoengineering in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas;
- its final stage involves the research team working with practitioners to define policy and regulatory choices. This builds on a set of workshops engaging with governments, commercial and non-commercial proponents of geoengineering, and civil society organisations, initiated by the Oxford Geoengineering Programme with independent sources of funding;
- its five reports - part of a wider set of outputs - will be targeted at those setting and scrutinising policy. These cover:
o Month 8. Use of the reverse stress test in characterising geoengineering proposals.
o Month 9. Geoengineering: Justice, risks and benefits.
o Month 12. Current law and regulation on geoengineering: A comparative study
o Month 22. Potential pathways for geoengineering development
o Month 26. Climate geoengineering governance
The main policy output of this project will be a set of approaches to enable policymakers to craft a geoengineering governance framework. The research will also (a) inform the construction of governance frameworks for future novel technologies as these emerge, and (b) provide insights as to how "appraisal optimism" in costing new technology - a term coined by H. M. Treasury - might be countered. The research teams will additionally use their own networks to strengthen policy engagement around the main findings.
Publications
Armeni, C.
(2015)
Geoengineering Under National Law: A Case Study Of The United Kingdom
Armeni, C.
(2015)
Geoengineering Under National Law: A Case Study of Germany
Bellamy R
(2017)
Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: An experimental deliberative approach
in Global Environmental Change
Bellamy R
(2017)
Crafting a public for geoengineering.
in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)
Bellamy R
(2018)
'Slippery slope' or 'uphill struggle'? Broadening out expert scenarios of climate engineering research and development
in Environmental Science & Policy
Bellamy R
(2016)
Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering.
in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England)
Bellamy R
(2016)
A Sociotechnical Framework for Governing Climate Engineering.
in Science, technology & human values
Bellamy, R.
(2015)
A Report on the CGG Project Scenarios Workshop, 13 October 2014
Bellamy, R.
(2015)
Public Engagement in the Climate Geoengineering Governance project
Bellamy, R.
(2013)
Framing Geoengineering Assessment
in Geoengineering our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series (www.geoengineeringourclimate.com)
Bellamy, R.
(2015)
A Review of Deliberative Public Engagements with Climate Geoengineering
Cairns R
(2014)
'Maintaining planetary systems' or 'concentrating global power?' High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering
in Global Environmental Change
Cairns R
(2014)
Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering
in The Geographical Journal
Clare Heyward (Co-Author)
(2013)
A Curious Asymmetry: Social Science Expertise and Geoengineering. CGG Working Paper no. 7
Clare Heyward (Co-Author)
(2013)
Apocalypse Nicked! CGG Working Paper no. 6.
Gordon MacKerron
(2014)
Costs and Economics of Geoengineering. CGG Working Paper no. 13
Healey P
(2021)
Governing Net Zero Carbon Removals to Avoid Entrenching Inequities
in Frontiers in Climate
Healey, P.B.
(2015)
Key Findings from the Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG) Project
Healey, P.B.
(2015)
Geoengineering and its Governance
Healey, P.B.
(2014)
The Stabilisation of Geoengineering: Stabilising the Inherently Unstable?
Heyward C
(2013)
Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change
in PS: Political Science & Politics
| Description | Governance challenges Climate geoengineering presents distinctive governance challenges because it: • includes a wide range of possible technologies embodying highly heterogeneous technical practices; • they are novel propositions whose impacts are hard to assess; • even experimental work on many of them (but not all) is controversial and likely to involve activities and consequences that cross jurisdictions; and • deployment of any of them would have to be considered in relation to further efforts in mitigation and adaptation, and in relation to problems (e.g. food shortages, lack of disaster resilience, migration) in which anthropogenic climate change is only one contributory cause. Framing Definitional politics are constantly at work framing and re-framing what, at any given moment, might be included under the geoengineering banner. For geoengineering governance it is important to specify the particular technological practice under consideration. Costs CGG analyses of costs and economics conclude that all of the cost estimates of geoengineering are entirely overdetermined by their input assumptions. Furthermore the cost estimates only look at the project costs, ignoring the social and environmental externalities. Security implications The principal military applications for weather and climate control appear to be terrain denial and demoralisation of civilians, but there are cheaper and more controllable options already available. Weaponisation of geoengineering technologies as such seems unlikely. The problem of perceived cross-border impacts would inevitably arise from geoengineering experiments when attribution for climatic events is unclear. It is also likely that the implementation of technologies like sulphate aerosol injection would be carried out in conjunction with military contractors. Governance International regulatory machinery could take three (not mutually exclusive) forms: adapting existing provisions; bespoke coverage of gaps in those provisions; and developing general principles of governance. In developing any regulatory framework, it is necessary to be aware of regulatory intention: is the law seeking to keep options open, or to limit potential risks? Any regulatory machinery requires flexibility to cope with changes in the technologies themselves or with the capacities to monitor and attribute their impacts. CGG has developed indicators to assess the applicability/adaptability of existing legal instruments to geoengineering. Our assessment shows there is no one existing authority with the scope and competence to cover the whole range of international governance requirements. There is scope to adapt existing regulatory machinery such as with the London Convention/London Protocol governing dumping at sea. The regulation of what is done within the atmosphere constitutes a real gap requiring new provisions. This might be considered a priority given the attention currently being given to Solar Radiation Management technologies. Wider implications We can also ask more generally what geoengineering can do for society? At the moment discussion of values is right up front before the technology is developed. So geoengineering provides opportunities to explore things like the way we think about nature, what we think is the good society, what's the role of technology in our lives, and its implications for social justice? Thinking about geoengineering can teach us about the governance of other emerging global technologies. |
| Exploitation Route | We have already established a number of mutually beneficial research and policy links in the course of the research, which include the G8+1, academic and policy bodies in China, India and Singapore and elsewhere, the London Convention/London Protocol on Dumping at Sea, the World Economic Forum, the FCO, DECC, RCUK and other UK government bodies, and a range of civil society organisations. All of these will be made aware of our findings. The joint programme of activity with the RCUK's IAGP and SPICE projects allowed us to develop a broadly common perspective on future research, and to start a wider discussion on the significance and future of our work. Our joint Royal Society event is publicly available through YouTube. The immediate steps we are taking to further publicise our findings and encourage debate on their implications include the issue of a set of briefing documents in common format with those of IAGP, and discussions with Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) on a possible Policy and Practice Note on Geoengineering. A forthcoming joint publication of the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (Potsdam) and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (Oxford) outlines a proposal for the establishment of professional research norms for geoengineering building on the Oxford Principles. Our ideas for future research are being discussed, inter alia, with a consortium of philanthropic research funders. |
| Sectors | Energy,Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| URL | http://geoengineering-governance-research.org |
| Description | CGG's policy impact is highly visible in the only major international policy report published since the full range of CGG's work has been available. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), in its October 2015 Update on Climate Geoengineering in Relation to the CBD: Potential Impacts and Regulatory Framework, cites 13 CGG papers in the main report (about 10% of all citations on governance and regulation) and 16 more in its additional bibliography of recent work. In late 2015 discussions are under way with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) to identify policy issues to be brought to the attention of the UK Parliament. In October 2013 Steve Rayner and Tim Kruger contributed to POST Note 447 Negative Emissions Technologies. In mid 2015 Peter Healey and Steve Rayner authored Living With Environmental Change's (LWEC) Policy and Practice Note 18 on Geoengineering and its governance, and the team prepared a full set of seven briefing notes summarising the results and recommendations of CGG for policy audiences. It is still early to assess the full impact of these, although we know they are being circulated through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's S&T Network. In September 2013, Steve Rayner and Tim Kruger presented to the Directors of Counter-Proliferation of each of the G8+1 countries at a meeting in London to discuss novel proliferation threats. As a follow up to this meeting, Catherine Redgwell and Tim Kruger met officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in January 2014 to discuss international regulatory arrangements as they relate to geoengineering. In October 2012, Catherine Redgwell and Chiara Armeni participated in the meeting in London of Contracting Parties to the 1972 London Dumping Convention and to the 1996 London Dumping Protocol. Following discussion of Ocean Iron Fertilization, they presented "Geoengineering: The Wider International Legal Context" which discussed key international governance challenges and potential governance models beyond the marine context. The Oxford Principles were further developed during the project and widely cited in international policy and academic discourse on geoengineering governance. In a personal communication, Phil Williamson (UEA and NERC) writes: 'I would be surprised if there are many other programmes that have had such a range and depth of policy influences.' CGG International Impact CGG International Workshops were held in Beijing, New Delhi and Singapore. Prior to our May 2014 workshop in Beijing geoengineering had not been a consistent part of Chinese policy discourse. Subsequently our Beijing hosts, Pan JiaHua and colleagues in the Institute for Urban and Environment Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, have been charged with pursuing governance and social issues within a new Chinese research programme on geoengineering, launched in late 2014. DECC, DEFRA and Research Councils participated in CGG's Scenarios Workshop, held in London in October 2014, which also included international academic and policy representation. CGG's Impact on Research CGG took the initiative in proposing closer collaboration to the other two concurrently RCUK funded geoengineering projects, IAGP and SPICE. The results included a workshop in Warwick in October 2014 between the three research teams, to deepen understanding of each other's work, and joint public presentation of key findings at the Royal Society in November 2014. Media coverage, organised with the help of the Science Media Centre, was extensive. In a personal communication, the PI of the SPICE project, Matt Watson, writes in December 2015: 'Governance is a critical part of the discourse around geoengineering, particularly those technologies whose deployment would see transboundary effects. SPICE was a project designed by scientists and engineers with little consideration for, or expertise in, governance. As such, the members of the SPICE project were ill equipped to consider widely the broader implications of their research. Academics from the University of Oxford's Oxford Martin School and the University of Sussex's Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) provided critical guidance to SPICE during a period of intense scrutiny and pressure.' As planned, the project has also worked with the Oxford Geoengineering Programme (OGP) to further develop project impacts. In February 2014 on Necker Island, Tim Kruger presented to a group of philanthropists convened by Richard Branson. Since that meeting discussions have continued with the Rasmussen Foundation, and the Children's Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), amongst others. The OGP organised a Foundations' Round Table in December 2014 for CIFF, to help the charitable sector develop a research funding strategy in the area, and has since submitted a memorandum on future research based on that meeting. CGG's conceptual framework contributed both to the problem framing of an OGP conference on Greenhouse Gas Removal Technologies, in October 2015 (which pulled in additional support from LWEC and Virgin Earth Challenge) and to the planning (during 2014 and 2015) of a new NERC-led initiative on greenhouse gas removal, expected to be announced in early 2016. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2012 |
| Sector | Aerospace, Defence and Marine,Energy,Environment,Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |
| Description | Lecture - Geoengineering our Climate: Science, Ethics and Governance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner gave the signature lecture to the Centre for International Governance innovation Conference on Geoengineering our Climate, Ottawa, Canada None other than an interesting discussion |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Lecture - Geoengineering our Climate: Science, Ethics and Governance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner gave the signature lecture to the Centre for International Governance innovation Conference on Geoengineering our Climate, Ottawa, Canada None other than an interesting discussion |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Lecture - Geoengineering our Climate: Science, Ethics and Governance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner gave the signature lecture to the Centre for International Governance innovation Conference on Geoengineering our Climate, Ottawa, Canada None other than an interesting discussion |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Address to the World Economic Forum's summer meeting. |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | In August 2014, Tim Kruger was invited to speak at the World Economic Forum's Summer Meeting in Tianjin, China on the subject of geoengineering. At a well-attended session, he presented on the wide range of proposed techniques and the potential and trade-offs associated with them. This represented an opportunity to engage with an international and largely commercial audience for whom the subject of geoengineering was completely novel. Chiefly the appreciation for the introduction to the subject from the audience. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Article in 'The Conversation' by Rob Bellamy |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Dr Bellamy provided a critical popular account of an international conference on climate engineering in Berlin as seen through the lens of his own research. This produced a number of positive responses from readers |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | https://theconversation.com/why-you-need-to-get-involved-in-the-geoengineering-debate-now-85619 |
| Description | BBC Radio 4 Programme on Geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A press release, press conference or response to a media enquiry/interview |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Rose Cairns, a Research Fellow in the Climate Geoengineering Governance Project at the University of Sussex, featured in a half-hour BBC radio 4 programme on Geoengineering, which went out on 11 December 2013, and focused on solar radiation management. The work of Rob Bellamy, a CGG research at InSIS, University of Oxford, was also mentioned in the programme. The programme can be heard by following this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ktz14 There was some increase in website traffic which we attribute to audience follow-up |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03ktz14 |
| Description | CGG Workshop on Geoengineering, Lock-in and Path Dependence |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Participants in your research and patient groups |
| Results and Impact | The workshop brought together a number of experts from a range of disciplinary backgrounds with the aim of discussing the concepts of lock-in and path dependence and their application to climate geoengineering. It was supported by a review paper by Dr Rose Cairns of SPRU, a member of the CGG project team, which is being submitted for publication. Other presentations are on the CGG website. It is clear that from responses of colleagues that this workshop provided new insights in applying findings from path dependence and lock-in from other policy domains to geoengineering. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/lockinworkshoppresentations.php |
| Description | CGG, IAGP and SPICE joint workshop, 223/23 October 2014 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Participants in your research and patient groups |
| Results and Impact | At CGG's initiative, the three projects met to deepen each other's knowledge of their work to date, and exchange perspectives on possible future research. There was remarkable unanimity about the role of the social sciences in future research, and about framing future research narratives so that geoengineering is seen to be less exceptional and more a contributor to a range of approaches for managing climate change. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Contribution by Rob Bellamy on geoengineering to Oxplore, an online digital outreach activity from the University of Oxford |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Oxplore is a digital resource aims to engage 10-18 year olds with research bearing on key issues of contemporary science and culture. Dr Bellamy's contribution to the question 'are humans ruining the earth?' dealt with the potential contribution of geoengineering |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | https://oxplore.org/question-detail/are-humans-ruining-the-earth |
| Description | Contributions to POSTNote 447 on Negative Emissions Technologies |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner and Tim Kruger were involved in the preparation of this POSTNote which drew on project work and which was distributed to Parliamentarians and made public. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-447/ |
| Description | Contributions to the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC14) Berlin from the Project Team |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Current and past members and associate fellows of the CGG research team are played a full part in the Climate Engineering Conference 2014 (CEC14) being held in Berlin from 18-21 August 2014. Steve Rayner was a panellist in the opening plenary session, on the Past Decade of Climate Engineering Research, as well as a Tuesday lunchtime session discussing the "Moral Hazard" that CE will unduly hinder emissions reductions and speaking in the closing day's session Climate Emergency: Science, Framing and Politics. Rob Bellamy and Pak-Hang Wong were convenors of and speakers in a session on Responsible Innovation and Climate Engineering. Pak-Hang Wong was also a speaker in a session Climate Engineering and Human Engineering: Social and technological Challenges in the Anthropocene. Rob Bellamy, Rose Cairns and Nils Markusson spoke in the session Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering. Rose Cairns is spoke in the sessions Exploring the Politics of Climate Engineering and What do People Think and Feel about Climate Engineering - and How do we Know? and, together with her Sussex colleague Paul Nightingale, contributed to the session on the Risks and Conflict Potential of Climate Engineering. Clare Heyward spoke in the session Intentional and Unintentional Interferences in the Climate System Tim Kruger contributed to a session on Enhanced Mineral Weathering: Potential and Consequences, and The Ethics of Carbon Dioxide Removal Deepening collaboration and intensifying debate with international academic colleagues. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.ce-conference.org |
| Description | Deliberative Workshop on Climate Geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Regional |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | he workshop elicited participants' perceptions of proposed climate geoengineering technologies before exploring their preferences for governing possible research and development. Perspectives such as these will play a vital role in the acceptance or otherwise of climate geoengineering. The main immediate purpose was to elect a range of public positions on geoengineering. This is being written up for publication as part of the CGG project's work on public engagement and consent. It will also feed into the design a national survey planned for the first quarter of 2015. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Engagement with international philanthropists on Necker Island |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | In February 2014, Tim Kruger was invited to speak on Necker Island, to a group of philanthropists brought together by Richard Branson, about the subject of geoengineering. In the current absence of funding from public sector sources, there have been calls for philanthropists to step in and fund research in this space. This represents both an opportunity - to draw on resources additional to those which the public sector can provide and the establishment of norms that are not commercially driven - and also a threat - funding from philanthropic sources is not constrained by rigorous governance considerations. It was agreed that the topic was in principle suitable for philanthropic funding. No offers as yet. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | First Meeting of Academic Working Group on International Governance of Climate Engineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | This working group was convened in Washington DC in March 2016 by the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment of the American University, as the first in a series looking at pathways to governance of solar radiation management technologies. Steve Rayner was one of the main speakers and participants. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| URL | http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2016/03/01/announcing-a-new-academic-working-group-on-international-gover... |
| Description | Geoengineering Research: Where Next? |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | This was one of two activities jointly organised, at CGG's initiative, with the other two RCUK-funded geoengineering research projects, IAGP and SPICE. It was a day event at the Royal Society on 26 November 2014 whose aim was to reach a wide range of audiences for the three projects' research findings and discuss the implications for future research and policy with an international panel. A video of the day is available through YouTube. The day before the PI's of the three projects held a joint press briefing at the Science Media Centre. The event attracted considerable media coverage, at home and abroad. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T81uQyD0RpY&list=PL_KA9gR6zLeEJt18oTVe-6fAJIPc2Lki0&index=1 |
| Description | Greenhouse Gas Removal Conference |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | The conference brought together researchers, technologists, industry, funders, third sector and government represented to discuss current knowledge on greenhouse gas removal, and future research needs. It drew on CGG and a wide range of other research, and contributed to the development of strategies for public and private research funding bodies. It was funded by the Oxford Martin School, with contributions from LWEC and Virgin Earth Challenge. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-greenhouse-gas-removal |
| Description | Guest lecture: Geoengineering Research: Ignorance, Emergency, The Slippery Slope and the Valley of Death |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner spoke to the Institute of Science and Society, university of Nottingham Good academic interchange |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Interview with the Carbon Brief |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A press release, press conference or response to a media enquiry/interview |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | Dr Bellamy's interview was one of a number conducted at an international conference on climate engineering held in Berlin in October 2017 which was reported on the Carbon Brief website. It was very successful in helping to get some of the key perspectives opened up by the CGG research reach a wider audience. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-scientists-berlin-debate-radicaly-ways-reverse-global-war... |
| Description | Interview with the Norwegian national broadcaster, NRK |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A press release, press conference or response to a media enquiry/interview |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
| Results and Impact | This interview, reported below in Norwegian, helped to spread ideas on the main options in geoengineering to a wider audience |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
| URL | http://www.yr.no/artikkel/frykter-ingen-vil-bry-seg-om-verdens-storste-eksperiment-1.13752384 |
| Description | Keynote Address - Climate Geoengineering: Dr Strangelove or Dr Salk |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner gave this keynote to ADC (Australian Davos Connection) Future Summit, Melbourne, Australia important for the number of government and industry decision-makers present |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Keynote Address on Evidence, Uncertainty and the Role of Values |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | The keynote was delivered to the Circling the Square: Conference on Research, Politics, Media and Impact Good academic interchange |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Keynote Address: Are We Still Trying to eat an Elephant? Scholarship and Politics Post-Copenhagen |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | The keynote was given by Steve Rayner to the Centre for Climate Science and Climate Research, Linkoping University Deepened an existing collaboration with the Centre, and allowed exploration of a parallel Swedish project on geoengineering which they are pursuing. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Meeting with officials at FCO to discuss international regulation of geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | As a follow up to the G8+1 meeting (reported separately), Catherine Redgwell and Tim Kruger met officials at the Foreign Office in January 2014 to discuss international regulatory arrangements as they relate to geoengineering. We secured their agreement to participate in a workshop that we are organising to examine the governance gaps relating to geoengineering. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Participation in scenarios workshop organised for the European EuTRACE study by the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, germany |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Peter Healey, Chiara Armeni and Tim Kruger took place in this workshop whose intentions were to help the EU understand, through the EuTRACE project findings, the range of plausible scenarios for the management of climate change in which geoengineering research or deployment might feature. Report on this workshop submitted to the European Commission. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Presentation - The Oxford Principles for Geoengineering Governance |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner's presentation was to international conference Planet under Pressure in London. A stimulating discussion of contrasting approaches to governance ensued. None other than the above. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Presentation on Climate Geoengineering Rhetoric |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Lively interest in questions and subsequently Nothing specific as yet |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Presentation to Directors of Counter-Proliferation for the G8+1 countries |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | It was concluded that while the broad range of geoengineering techniques could not be judged in a one-size-fits-all manner, it was unlikely that they fell under the description of a proliferation threat, as the term is normally understood. It was, however, agreed that while the techniques themselves would be unlikely to be used in a hostile manner, if they were deployed unilaterally they could result in hostility. Follow-up meeting at FCO, recorded as a separate activity |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Presentation to London Convention/Protocol Meeting |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Professor Catherine Redgwell and Chiara Armeni (GCC Research Fellow) attended the 34th Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1972 London Dumping Convention and 7th Meeting of Contracting Parties to the 1996 London Dumping Protocol (London, International Maritime Organization). Following the discussion on Ocean Iron Fertilization, they delivered a presentation entitled "Geoengineering: The Wider International Legal Context" discussing key international governance challenges and potential governance models beyond the marine context. The presentation also provided an opportunity for illustrating the CGG project's objectives, research themes and deliverables, and to receive feedback from the audience. See attached presentation. See attached presentation. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| Description | Presentation to the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit on Geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | In December 2013, Tim Kruger was invited to speak at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi on the subject of geoengineering. It provided a useful opportunity to raise the issues relating to geoengineering with leading Indian policymakers and industry leaders, many of whom had not encountered the subject before. A number of participants requested more information. The engagement helped set the scene for the project's specialist workshop on geoengineering in New Delhi in June 2014. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Presentations in Germany on International Law and Regulation and Geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Work in progress presentations on the law and regulation in relation to geoengineering were given by Chiara Armeni to the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam and the German Environment Agency (UBA) in Berlin Considerable interest expressed in the research |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Public Debate on Geoengineering Research |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | Local |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Four speakers, two for research into geoengineering, two against, spoke in the debate and responded to questions. Indicative polls of audience positions were taken before and after polling. See the URL for details. The audience was better able to understand geoengineering, and changed its opinions as a result of the debate. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/geoengineering-research-public-debate-... |
| Description | Public lecture - Anthropology and Climate Change: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Anthropocene |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner was giving a public lecture at the Royal Anthropological Institute, followed by lively questions and discussion. Nothing other than the above. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Public lecture - Climate Change and the Role of Geoengineering |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner gave this public lecture to the European Center for Sustainability Research, Zeppelin University, Freidrichshafen, Germany Nothing specific. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Public lecture - Contesting Geoengineering Governance: Reflections of an Observing Participant |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Steve Rayner was giving a public lecture at Harvard/MIT Good interchange |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| Description | Road from Paris: Ensuring effective and equitable climate action |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The meeting was organised in New Delhi by the Observer Research Foundation, one of the most respected public policy think-tanks in India. The aim was to focus on future climate policy in the light of the Paris conference and agreement. Steve Rayner gave the keynote address. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2016 |
| Description | Scenarios Workshop, Royal Institution, 13 October 2014 |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | The Scenarios Workshop involved four heterogeneous groups of researchers, policymakers, and civil society representatives discussing how a number of approaches to governance might apply to research in four main geoengineering technologies over the next 30 years. The day was a learning opportunity for the participants; the results are being analysed and written up by the research team. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | Workshop: CGG's academic and policy context |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Type Of Presentation | paper presentation |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
| Results and Impact | This project workshop took place in month 9 of the project. Its broad aim was not only to get feedback on the three work packages which comprise our first phase of work and some specific research issues we will be tackling in the coming months, but also to get a sense of what the agenda of issues on climate geoengineering governance might be 18 months downstream when the CGG is producing its final outputs. The workshop comprised two sessions situating geoengineering governance - mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering as governance issues, and geoengineering as an emerging technology; three sessions on work done under CGG's first three work packages - geoengineering as a 'novel' sociotechnical construction, issues of ethics and procedural justice, and issues of law and regulation; and followed by a session on some future works - looking at engagement's two roles in CGG, as an object of study, and a means of stimulating informed debate. The workshop concluded with two sessions on what we may have learned so far - from other geoengineering projects which raised governance issues, and from Germany the US and Sweden. There were 44 workshop participants, 17 from the CGG research team or associates, 12 from UK academic or policy institutions, and 15 from other European countries or North America. The names of speakers and organisers from the research team and associates only are listed below. The workshop met its objectives in getting CGG known to the academic community (the primary objective although it included representatives of civil society organisations) and helping to situate our efforts in relation to other work. Many of the links made at the workshop were developed by individual members of the research team in getting comments on papers, for example. At a broader level the links established with the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, led to ma |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2013 |
| URL | http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/outputs-from-the-st-annes-workshop.php |
| Description | Workshops in Beijing and New Delhi |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | Both workshops aimed to get a sense of the policy and research agenda in the two countries. There has been subsequent discussion of the scope for research collaboration, possible under the Newton scheme, especially with India. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |