Advertisement

Environment Systems and Decisions

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 371–382 | Cite as

Emerging risk governance for stratospheric aerosol injection as a climate management technology

  • Khara D. GriegerEmail author
  • Tyler Felgenhauer
  • Ortwin Renn
  • Jonathan Wiener
  • Mark Borsuk
Perspectives

Abstract

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) as a solar radiation management (SRM) technology may provide a cost-effective means of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate change, being perhaps orders of magnitude less expensive than greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. At the same time, SAI technologies have deeply uncertain economic and environmental impacts and complex ethical, legal, political, and international relations ramifications. Robust governance strategies are needed to manage the many potential benefits, risks, and uncertainties related to SAI. This perspective reviews the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)’s guidelines for emerging risk governance (ERG) as an approach for responsible consideration of SAI, given the IRGC’s experience in governing other more conventional risks. We examine how the five steps of the IRGC’s ERG guidelines would address the complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risks presented by SAI. Diverse risks are identified in Step 1, scenarios to amplify or dissipate the risks are identified in Step 2, and applicable risk management options identified in Step 3. Steps 4 and 5 involve implementation and review by risk managers within an established organization. For full adoption and promulgation of the IRGC’s ERG guidelines, an international consortium or governing body (or set of bodies) should be tasked with governance and oversight. This Perspective provides a first step at reviewing the risk governance tasks that such a body would undertake and contributes to the growing literature on best practices for SRM governance.

Keywords

Climate engineering Climate management Geoengineering Risk assessment Risk governance Solar radiation management Stratospheric aerosol injection 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the “Decisions, Risks, and Governance of Geoengineering” Collaboratory project with funding from the Duke University Office of the Provost. We would also like to thank participants at the 6th Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies & Science: Law, Policy, and Ethics conference at Arizona State University (May 16–18, 2018, Phoenix, AZ), for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Finally, we also thank the participants in the Geoengineering Risks, Decisions, and Governance, Part I symposium at the Society for Annual Meeting (December 4, 2018, New Orleans, LA), for their comments and suggestions on this analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Two of the authors of this Perspective are active members of the IRGC (Ortwin Renn and Jonathan Wiener associated with the IRGC Council Foundation), although their views should not be construed as representing the organization.

References

  1. Access Science Editors (2017) Biocontrol of pests by species importation. Access Science, McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.accessscience.com/content/biocontrol-of-pests-by-species-importation/BR1027171. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  2. Angel R (2006) Feasibility of cooling the earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner lagrange point (L1). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103(46):17184–17189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Res Econ 39(1):45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates ME, Grieger K, Trump B, Keisler J, Plourde K, Linkov I (2016) Emerging technologies for environmental remediation: integrating data and judgment. Environ Sci Technol 50(1):349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián C (2012) Integrating trust and personal values into the technology acceptance model: the case of e-government services adoption. Cuadernos Econ Direcc Empresa 15(4):192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2013) ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environ Change 23(5):926–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickel JE (2013) Climate engineering and climate tipping-point scenarios. Environ Syst Decis 33(1):152–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickel JE, Agrawal S (2013) Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Change 119(3):993–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickel JE, Lane L (2013) Climate engineering R&D. In: Lomborg B (ed) Global problems, smart solutions: costs and benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 203–225Google Scholar
  10. Boettcher M, Gabriel J, Low S (2016) Solar radiation management: foresight for governance. IASS working paper 2. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Boettcher M, Parker A, Schäfer S, Honegger M, Low S, Lawrence M (2017) Solar radiation management: IASS fact sheet. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke M, Davis WM, Diffenbaugh NS (2018) Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets. Nature 557(7706):549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caldeira K, Keith D (2010) The need for climate engineering research. Issues Sci Technol 27(1):57–62Google Scholar
  14. Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance (C2G2) Initiative (2018) The C2G2 approach—summary, C2G2. https://www.c2g2.net/publications/. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  15. Chhetri N, Chong D, Conca K, Falk R, Gillespie A, Gupta A, Jinnah S, Kashwan P, Lahsen M, Light A, McKinnon C, Thiele LP, Valdivia W, Wapner P, Morrow D, Turkaly C, Nicholson S (2018) Governing solar radiation management. Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, American University, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Cicerone RJ (2006) Geoengineering: encouraging research and overseeing implementation. Clim Change 77(3):221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Climate Action Tracker (2017). Equitable emissions reductions under the Paris Agreement. https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/equitable-emissions-reductions-under-paris-agreement/. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  18. Conca K (2018) Prospects for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on climate engineering. Environ Pol 28:1–24Google Scholar
  19. Cummings CL, Lin SH, Trump BD (2017) Public perceptions of climate geoengineering: a systematic review of the literature. Clim Res 73(3):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dai Z, Weisenstein DK, Keith DW (2018) Tailoring meridional and seasonal radiative forcing by sulfate aerosol solar geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 45(2):1030–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doughty J (2015) Past forays into SRM field research and their implications for future governance. Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article SeriesGoogle Scholar
  22. Dykema JA, Keith DW, Anderson JG, Weisenstein D (2014) Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment: A small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering. Phil Trans R Soc A 372(2031):20140059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fawcett AA, Iyer GC, Clarke LE, Edmonds JA, Hultman NE, McJeon HC, Rogelj J, Schuler R, Alsalam J, Asrar GR, Creason J, Jeong M, McFarland J, Mundra A, Shi W (2015) Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350(6265):1168–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Felgenhauer T, Borsuk M, Wiener J (2018) Risk trade-offs between climate change, mitigation, and solar radiation management. Society for Risk Analysis, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  25. Flage R, Aven T (2015) Emerging risk—conceptual definition and a relation to black swan type of events. Rel Eng Syst Saf 144:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham JD, Wiener JB (1995a) Confronting risk tradeoffs. In: Graham JD, Wiener JB (eds) Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  27. Graham JD, Wiener JB (1995b). Resolving risk tradeoffs. In: Graham JD, Wiener JB (eds) Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 226–271Google Scholar
  28. Grieger KD, Fjordbøge A, Hartmann NB, Eriksson E, Bjerg PL, Baun A (2010) Environmental benefits and risks of zero-valent iron nanoparticles (nZVI) for in situ remediation: risk mitigation or trade-off? J Contamin Hydrol 118(3):165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ETC Group (2011). Open letter about SPICE geoengineering test, RE: the stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering (SPICE) projectGoogle Scholar
  30. Gunderson R (2018) Global Environmental governance should be participatory: five problems of scale. Intern Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918792786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gunderson R, Petersen B, Stuart D (2018) A critical examination of geoengineering: economic and technological rationality in social context. Sustain 10(1):269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta A, Möller I (2018) De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance. Environ Pol.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1452373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hale E (2012) Geoengineering experiment cancelled due to perceived conflict of interest. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  34. Hamilton C (2013) No, we should not just ‘at least do the research’. Nature 496(7444):139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horton JB, Reynolds J (2016) The international politics of climate engineering: a review and prospectus for international relations. Intern Stud Rev 18(3):438–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horton JB, Reynolds JL, Buck HJ, Callies D, Schäfer S, Keith D, Rayner S (2018) Solar geoengineering and democracy. Glob Environ Pol 18(3):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hubert AM (2017) Code of conduct for responsible geoengineering research. University of Oxford, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS). https://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/files/grgproject/revised-code-of-conduct-forgeoengineering-research-2017-hubert.pdf
  38. Hulme M (2014) Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2015) IRGC guidelines for emerging risk governance: guidance for the governance of unfamiliar risks. IRGC, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  40. IRGC (2017) Introduction to the IRGC risk governance framework. IRGC, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  41. Irvine PJ, Kravitz B, Lawrence MG, Gerten D, Caminade C, Gosling SN, Hendy EJ, Kassie BT, Kissling WD, Muri H, Oschlies A, Smith SJ (2017) Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future 5(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Izrael YA, Zakharov VM, Petrov NN, Ryaboshapko AG, Ivanov VN, Savchenko AV, Andreev YV, Eran’kov VG, Puzov YA, Danilyan BG, Kulyapin VP, Gulevskii VA (2009) Field studies of a geo-engineering method of maintaining a modern climate with aerosol particles. Russ Metrol Hydrol 34(10):635–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jinnah S (2018) Why govern climate engineering? A preliminary framework for demand-based governance. Int Stud Rev 20(2):272–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones AC, Haywood JM, Dunstone N, Emanuel K, Hawcroft MK, Hodges KI, Jones A (2017) Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency. Nat Commun 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jotzo F, Depledge J, Winkler H (2018) US and international climate policy under President Trump. Clim Pol 18(7):813–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keith DW, Irvine PJ (2016) Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks—a research hypothesis for the next decade. Earth’s Future 4(11):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keith DW, MacMartin DG (2015) A temporary, moderate and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering. Nat Clim Change 5(3):201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keith DW, Weisenstein DK, Dykema JA, Keutsch FN (2016) Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss. Proceed Nat Acad Sci 113(52):14910–14914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Linkov I, Trump BD, Anklam E, Berube D, Boisseasu P, Cummings C, Ferson S, Florin MV, Goldstein B, Hristozov D, Jensen KA, Katalagarianakis G, Kuzma J, Lambert JH, Malloy T, Malsch I, Marcomini A, Merad M, Palma-Oliveira J, Perkins E, Renn O, Seager T, Stone V, Vallero D, Vermeire T (2018) Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies. Environ Syst Decis 38(2):170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MacCracken MC (2006) Geoengineering: worthy of cautious evaluation? Clim Change 77(3):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacMartin DG, Keith DW, Kravitz B, Caldeira K (2013) Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing. Nat Clim Change 3(4):365–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mazri C (2017) (Re) defining emerging risks. Risk Anal 37(11):2053–2065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McKinnon C (2018) Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research. Environ Politics 28:1–19Google Scholar
  54. Morgan G, Ricke K (2010) Cooling the earth through solar radiation management: the need for research and an approach to its governance. An Opinion Piece for IRGC. IRGC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  55. Moriyama R, Sugiyama M, Kurosawa A, Masuda K, Tsuzuki K, Ishimoto Y (2017) The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 22(8):1207–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nicholson S, Jinnah S, Gillespie A (2018) Solar radiation management: a proposal for immediate polycentric governance. Clim Pol 18(3):322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olson RL (2011) Geoengineering for decisionmakers. Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Osborne OJ, Johnston BD, Moger J, Balousha M, Lead JR, Kudoh T, Tyler CR (2013) Effects of particle size and coating on nanoscale Ag and TiO2 exposure in zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos. Nanotoxicol 7(8):1315–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Oxford Geoengineering Programme (2018). The Principles. http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  60. Parkhill K, Pidgeon N (2011) Public engagement on geoengineering research: preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops. Understanding Risk Research Group, Cardiff University School of Psychology, CardiffGoogle Scholar
  61. Parson EA (2014) Climate engineering in global climate governance: implications for participation and linkage. Trans Environ Law 3(1):89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parson EA, Keith DW (2013) End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339(6125):1278–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pasztor J (2017) The need for governance of climate geoengineering. Ethics Internat Affairs 31(4):419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pasztor J, Turner M (2018) Optimism and prudence in geoengineering governance, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative. https://www.c2g2.net/optimism-vs-prudence-geo-governance/
  65. Pasztor J, Scharf C, Schmidt KU (2017) How to govern geoengineering? Science 357(6348):231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Change 3:451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Preston CJ (2013) Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev 4(1):23–37Google Scholar
  68. Rahman AA (2018) Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature 556(7699):22–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rasch PJ, Crutzen PJ, Coleman DB (2008) Exploring the geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols: the role of particle size. Geophys Res Lett 35(2):L02809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J (2013) The Oxford principles. Clim Change 121(3):499–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Renn O (2014) Emerging risks: methodology, classification and policy implications. J Risk Anal Cris Resp 4(3):114–132Google Scholar
  72. Renn O, Lucas K, Haas A, Jaeger C (2017) Things are different today: the challenge of global systemic risks. J Risk Res.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1409252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reynolds JL (2016) Opening editorial. Eur J Risk Reg 7(1):58–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Reynolds JL, Parker A, Irvine P (2016) Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome. Earth’s Future 4(12):562–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull Atom Sci 64(2):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rogelj J, den Elzen M, Höhne N, Fransen T, Fekete H, Winkler H, Schaeffer R, Sha F, Riahi K, Meinshausen M (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature 534:631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Russell LM, Sorooshian A, Seinfeld JH, Albrecht BA, Nenes A, Ahlm L, Chen YC, Coggon M, Craven JS, Flagan RC, Frossard AA, Jonsson H, Jung E, Lin JJ, Metcalf AR, Modini R, Mülmenstädt J, Roberts GC, Shingler T, Song S, Wang Z, Wonaschütz A (2012) Eastern pacific emitted aerosol cloud experiment (E-PEACE). DOI, Bull Am Meterol Soc.  https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-12-00015.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scheer D, Renn O (2014) Public perception of geoengineering and its consequences for public debate. Clim Change 125(3):305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. ScoPEx (2018) SCoPEx: Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). Keutsch Research Group; Harvard University. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  80. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle TC (2005) Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. J Risk Res 8(2):145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Society for Risk Analysis (2015) Society for risk analysis glossary. Approved 22 June 2015Google Scholar
  82. SPICE Project (2018) Evaluating candidate particles. SPICE Project. https://archive.fo/COEUc. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  83. Stavis R, Zou J, Brewer T, Conte Grand M, den Elzen M, Finus M, Gupta J, Hohne N, Lee M, Michaelowa A, Patterson M, Kramakrishna A, Wen G, Wiener J, Winkler H (2014). International cooperation: agreements and institutions. Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Working Group III, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation. In: Edenhofer O, Richs-Madruga R, Sokona Y (eds) Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  84. Talberg A, Christoff P, Thomas S, Karoly D (2018) Geoengineering governance-by-default: an earth system governance perspective. Int Environ Agree 18(2):229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Temple J (2018) How one climate scientist combats threats and misinformation from chemtrail conspiracists. Technol Rev. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611682/how-one-climate-scientist-combats-threats-and-misinformation-from-chemtrail-conspiracists/. Accessed 28 Sept 2018
  86. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. Tollefson J (2018) First sun-dimming experiment will test a way to cool Earth. Nature 563(7733):613–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Ricke K (2009) The geoengineering option: a last resort against global warming? Counc Foreign Relat 88:64–76Google Scholar
  89. Wiener JB (1995) Protecting the global environment. In: Graham JD, Wiener JB (eds) Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in protecting health and the environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–225Google Scholar
  90. Renn O, Bratschatzek N, Hiller S, Scheer D (2014) Perspective on risks and concerns with respect to climate engineering. In: Dietz T, Jorgenson A (eds) Structural human ecology: new essays in risk, energy, and sustainability. Washington State University Press, Pullman, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  91. Yu M, Huang S, Yu KJ, Clyne AM (2012) Dextran and polymer polyethylene glycol (PEG) coating reduce both 5 and 30 nm iron oxide nanoparticle cytotoxicity in 2D and 3D cell culture. Int J Mol Sci 13(5):5554–5570CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Khara D. Grieger
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tyler Felgenhauer
    • 2
  • Ortwin Renn
    • 3
  • Jonathan Wiener
    • 4
  • Mark Borsuk
    • 2
  1. 1.Genetic Engineering and Society CenterNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Sustainability StudiesPotsdamGermany
  4. 4.Duke Law School, Nicholas School of the Environment, and Sanford School of Public PolicyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations