A scenario process to inform Australian geoengineering policy

Talberg, Anita; Schierl, Thomas; Wiseman, John

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.003

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is part of why Function Creep is such a difficult policy problem. Initial study in this area for SAI highlights the potential to use SAI to "optimize" or create "designer climates" (Preston, 2013;Talberg et al, 2018). Actors may for example advocate for deployment configurations that lead to more favorable conditions for critical staple crops, especially in response to warming impacts.…”

Section: Discussion: Building the Policy Boundaries For Climate Engin...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk

Tang

Kemp

2021

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injecting particles into atmosphere to reflect sunlight, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), represents a potential technological solution to the threat of climate change. But could the cure be worse than the disease? Understanding low probability, yet plausible, high-impact cases is critical to prudent climate risk management and SAI deliberation. But analyses of such high impact outcomes are lacking in SAI research. This paper helps resolve this gap by investigating SAI's contributions to global catastrophic risk. We split SAI's contributions to catastrophic risk into four interrelated dimensions:1. Acting as a direct catastrophic risk through potentially unforeseen ecological blowback.2. Interacting with other globally catastrophic hazards like nuclear war.3. Exacerbating systemic risk (risks that cascade and amplify across different systems);4. Acting as a latent risk (risk that is dormant but can later be triggered).The potential for major unforeseen environmental consequences seems highly unlikely but is ultimately unknown. SAI plausibly interacts with other catastrophic calamities, most notably by potentially exacerbating the impacts of nuclear war or an extreme space weather event. SAI could contribute to systemic risk by introducing stressors into critical systems such as agriculture. SAI's systemic stressors, and risks of systemic cascades and synchronous failures, are highly understudied. SAI deployment more tightly couples different ecological, economic, and political systems. This creates a precarious condition of latent risk, the largest cause for concern. Thicker SAI masking extreme warming could create a planetary Sword of Damocles. That is, if SAI were removed but underlying greenhouse gas concentrations not reduced, there would be extreme warming in a very short timeframe. Sufficiently large global shocks could force SAI termination and trigger SAI's latent risk, compounding disasters and catastrophic risks. Across all these dimensions, the specific SAI deployment, and associated governance, is critical. A well-coordinated use of a small amount of SAI would incur negligible risks, but this is an optimistic scenario. Conversely, larger use of SAI used in an uncoordinated manner poses many potential dangers. We cannot equivocally determine whether SAI will be worse than warming. For now, a heavy reliance on SAI seems an imprudent policy response.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Building the Policy Boundaries For Climate Engin...mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk

Tang

Kemp

2021

Front. Clim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Induction enables participants to work more freely with a larger number of driving forces than is possible under the deductive (intuitive logics) approach (Talberg et al 2018;Freeth and Drimie 2016;Schnaars 1987). In Chap.…”

Section: Inductive Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objectives, Approaches and Techniques

McGee

Edmiston

Haward

2021

The Future of Antarctica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From our review of scenario objectives, approaches, and techniques, we suggest that scenario methods can be grouped under one or more of seven broad approaches: deductive, inductive, quantitative, hybrid, integrated, scoping, and engagement. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that no single scenario approach can match the scale and complexity of Antarctic geopolitics. For that reason, we recommend that a scenario process employ a judicious blend of several approaches. For this book, we focus on one technique, the standard intuitive logics '2 × 2' matrix, commonly deployed in geopolitical scenarios. We unpack it with a worked example and encounter some difficulties applying it to the field of Antarctic geopolitics. This leads us to propose some modifications, which may be useful for scenarios in other fields. Importantly, 'practical' decisions about scoping and framing of scenarios are shaped, in important ways, by the assumptions and values we hold. Which issues are in? Which are out? How are issues framed? Whose voices are heard, and whose are excluded? What types of data do we admit? How do we handle complexity? What expertise do we need? Decisions about scenario process are not the objective, technical considerations they are often perceived to be.In the preceding chapter, we described a space where standard, probabilistic predictions are doomed to fail due to the convergence of complexity, uncertainty, and time. Nonetheless, we proposed that, within that space, there is opportunity for scenarios to provide evidence-based, broad-brush, but targeted prediction. We

show abstract

Public attitude toward solar radiation modification: results of a two-scenario online survey on perception in four Asia–Pacific countries

Sugiyama,

Asayama,

Kosugi

et al. 2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solar geoengineering or solar radiation modification (SRM) is increasingly looming large as a potential response to human-induced climate change. However, it is deeply mired in controversies surrounding environmental risks and social governance challenges. Given the high stakes and uncertain characteristics of SRM, it is essential to understand public perception. However, previous studies on public perception have not explicitly utilized scenarios to frame SRM as an option in the future and mostly have been conducted in the Global North. Here, we present the results of an online survey conducted in Australia, India, Japan, and the Philippines in 2022. In our survey, we showed two different SRM scenarios in which SRM would play different roles in the policy response to the possibility of climate tipping points. Overall, respondents in India and the Philippines were more concerned about climate change and more supportive of SRM, and tended to feel that future scenarios with SRM deployment were more plausible than those in Japan and Australia. Nonetheless, public support of SRM was ambivalent, and many voiced concerns about the environmental and governance risks of SRM. Our findings suggest the significance of explicitly communicating the policy contexts in which SRM might be deployed in the future for capturing more nuanced understandings of SRM among the public.

show abstract

A scenario process to inform Australian geoengineering policy

Cited by 6 publications

References 47 publications

A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk

A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk

Objectives, Approaches and Techniques

Public attitude toward solar radiation modification: results of a two-scenario online survey on perception in four Asia–Pacific countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About