How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations

Abstract

Geoengineering could remake environments and societies, and early governance can help to steer the development of technologies towards sustainable outcomes. In the absence of observational data, geoengineering research and discussions are increasingly informed by scenarios, which provide heuristic tools for 'envisioning' potential futures. Although designed for specific research goals, scenarios can have broader implications by influencing expectations about the societal role that emerging geoengineering technologies can play. Yet the design of geoengineering scenarios has gone largely unscrutinized. This study is a meta-analysis in which we evaluate geoengineering scenarios from the literature to identify emerging expectations and assess these in the context of sustainability science. We find that geoengineering scenarios can be classified into three types based on purpose and use: for scientific knowledge-building; as 'structured conversation' starters; or as exploratory research tools. The first category dominates the literature; these scenarios stem from physical science disciplines where scientific tradition dictates simplification and standardization, both of which may provide misleading images of the future and therefore hinder robust decision-making. In contrast, scenarios used as exploratory tools depict not one single image of why and how geoengineering might evolve, but many. Analysis of these exploratory scenarios reveal expectations that a geoengineered future may hinge on at least four key elements-the potential for a universal geoengineering agreement, public perceptions of geoengineering, technical controllability, and the severity of climate impacts. These elements were not studied in the scientific knowledge-building scenarios, suggesting the need for an additional category of scenarios. Aligning with concepts of sustainability science, new geoengineering scenario exercises would merge participatory practices of exploratory scenarios with deterministic practices of technical scientific scenarios.

Pandemic politics—lessons for solar geoengineering

“…If the concept of stratospheric aerosol injection leaves the realm of modeling, it will be thrust into a multi-societal science-media-policy interface that operates in ways that are not currently anticipated-at least not in idealized model simulations or unitary rational actor governance scenarios 3 .…”

Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present

“…In discussing the role of science in responses to climate change (Hulme, 2010), climate engineering (Gupta & Möller, 2018;Low, 2017), or other domains of sustainability, such an approach to anticipation questions whether expert-driven visioning is merely a technical process that can objectively and neutrally engage with the future (see also Mittelstadt et al, 2015). In this view, claim-making about the future must instead be analyzed as a site of political negotiation and conflict (Gupta, 2011; see also Jansen & Gupta, 2009;Talberg et al, 2018). The key focus is to identify the discursive effects of frames or fabrications of the future as they are generated and advanced through practices of anticipation; and to study how these exert power over the present.…”

Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research

“…As such, single-objective targets may not be appropriate for managing trade-offs in hypothetical deployments. An important component of investigations to create a holistic understanding of the potentials and limitations of solar geoengineering is effective scenario generation 142 to capture relatively unexplored issues in climate models, such as distributional justice and multiple stakeholder perspectives 143,144 .…”