Re: [geo] The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew,  cc List

I am almost finished reading this - and found it to be first-rate.  
Biochar is mentioned only twice (only found once by a search - the other in a 
figure/graph) - and so there is essentially nothing to quibble about for 
biochar.  Still, the perspective of an expert in political science (as opposed 
to the usual geo view on morals and ethics by Philosophers) should be very 
helpful to anyone remotely related to either CDR or SRM.

There are two open-source papers already available to us, but two more 
in process.  All should be helpful to anyone trying to implement policy.

This is one example where it makes sense to combine discussion of both 
SRM and CDR. 

I think detailed “Politics” material on each Geo approach should be the 
next step.  Biochar is very different from the examples given here, but there 
are many lessons for biochar herein.   I hope Dr. Moller ext4ends her analyses.


Ron





> On Aug 21, 2019, at 2:36 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/the-emergent-politics-of-geoengineering(5db25b16-0faf-47f9-87a8-e90b88c7c2a9).html
>  
> 
> 
> The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering
> THESIS › DOCTORAL THESIS (COMPILATION)
> 
> Overview
>  
> 
> Cite
>  
> 
> BibTeX
>  
> 
> Abstract
> This thesis examines the role of science in the earliest stages of the 
> political process. It does this by studying the emergence of ‘geoengineering’ 
> on the political agenda. The term describes a set of ideas on how to 
> stabilize global temperature by intervening into the Earth’s natural systems, 
> and was subject to a strong taboo in the scientific community until the 
> mid-2000s. Yet within a decade, it has become relevant to international 
> climate politics. To understand how this transition took place, the thesis 
> uses mixed methods to study the causal mechanisms by which geoengineering 
> became an object of governance. Paper I describes the internal dynamics of a 
> scientific community that helped transform geoengineering into a distinct, 
> salient and malleable governance object. It explains how social cohesion, 
> brokerage and diversity acted as important mechanisms in this process. Paper 
> II studies the role of authoritative scientific assessments in making 
> geoengineering a normal and relevant topic for research. It shows how such 
> assessments act as a form of de facto governance in shaping the activities of 
> a research landscape. Paper III identifies similarities and differences in 
> the way that different sub-areas of climate change policy are governed. It 
> suggests that, if a problem structure is perceived to be malign, this makes 
> it less conducive to public governance. Conversely, if a problem structure 
> comes to be perceived as more benign, this facilitates public governance. 
> Paper IV examines the role of problem definition and ‘institutional fit’, 
> evaluating how geoengineering matches with the expectations of government 
> actors. It discusses three areas where such fit is lacking, and how this 
> makes it difficult for government officials to form a political position on 
> geoengineering. The results of this study flow into the description of a 
> pattern that seems to be important at many different stages of the 
> opinion-shaping process. This pattern includes the introduction of a topic to 
> a new audience; the audience’s heated debate around this topic; the 
> intervention of an actor with authority; and the streamlining of the 
> audience’s debate according to the authoritative actor’s judgement. Found at 
> many different levels of the political process, the pattern may explain why 
> some topics become subject to political decision making, and others do not.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-057meF27vzD20dqjZsCBAOPiGq5dn%2Br2Sf4AaNc%2B951Hw%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 

[geo] The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

[Andrew Lockley]

https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/the-emergent-politics-of-geoengineering(5db25b16-0faf-47f9-87a8-e90b88c7c2a9).html

The Emergent Politics of Geoengineering

THESIS › DOCTORAL THESIS (COMPILATION)

   - Overview
   

   - Cite
   

   - BibTeX
   


Abstract
This thesis examines the role of science in the earliest stages of the
political process. It does this by studying the emergence of
‘geoengineering’ on the political agenda. The term describes a set of ideas
on how to stabilize global temperature by intervening into the Earth’s
natural systems, and was subject to a strong taboo in the scientific
community until the mid-2000s. Yet within a decade, it has become relevant
to international climate politics. To understand how this transition took
place, the thesis uses mixed methods to study the causal mechanisms by
which geoengineering became an object of governance. Paper I describes the
internal dynamics of a scientific community that helped transform
geoengineering into a distinct, salient and malleable governance object. It
explains how social cohesion, brokerage and diversity acted as important
mechanisms in this process. Paper II studies the role of authoritative
scientific assessments in making geoengineering a normal and relevant topic
for research. It shows how such assessments act as a form of de facto
governance in shaping the activities of a research landscape. Paper III
identifies similarities and differences in the way that different sub-areas
of climate change policy are governed. It suggests that, if a problem
structure is perceived to be malign, this makes it less conducive to public
governance. Conversely, if a problem structure comes to be perceived as
more benign, this facilitates public governance. Paper IV examines the role
of problem definition and ‘institutional fit’, evaluating how
geoengineering matches with the expectations of government actors. It
discusses three areas where such fit is lacking, and how this makes it
difficult for government officials to form a political position on
geoengineering. The results of this study flow into the description of a
pattern that seems to be important at many different stages of the
opinion-shaping process. This pattern includes the introduction of a topic
to a new audience; the audience’s heated debate around this topic; the
intervention of an actor with authority; and the streamlining of the
audience’s debate according to the authoritative actor’s judgement. Found
at many different levels of the political process, the pattern may explain
why some topics become subject to political decision making, and others do
not.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-057meF27vzD20dqjZsCBAOPiGq5dn%2Br2Sf4AaNc%2B951Hw%40mail.gmail.com.