We are producing too much climate changing carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels. The obvious answer is to stop using them. But if it is too hard, then perhaps we can capture and store the carbon dioxide, or find other ways to offset the impacts of climate change. Various geo-engineering ideas are getting attention these days, so it is interesting to see how they are being received by the general public.
Engaging 323 lay-people across the world, a new technology foresight study explores imagined futures where climate interventions, such as solar radiation modification and large-scale carbon removal, are widely implemented in 2030. The participants generated 299 distinct ‘futures’, each characterized by an imagined newspaper headline. Some were positive, some negative, some neutral. For example, in terms of Solar Radiation Management, the study says ‘futures were on balance more positive for Marine Cloud Brightening, evenly split for space-based approaches, and more negative for Stratospherie Aerosola Injection’. And for Carbon Removal ‘afforestation & soil carbon sequestration had almost entirely positive futures, DACCS & BECCS mostly positive, & enhanced weathering an even split between positive & negative’.
However, there was no consensus on what should be done. Indeed, the study says the findings reveal ‘an extraordinary diversity of futures, ranging from optimistic futures of technological innovation and disease eradication to pessimistic futures of ecological disruption, the spread of cancer, and social inequities’. Well yes, that’s not surprising- it’s all very uncertain. So, there are lots of views. But, although the participatory approach used does allow for, and lead to, quite a range of responses, arguably the framing of this study misses a very big issue: is the attraction of carbon removal/sun shades and so on be that they might allow for the continued use of fossil fuels? Why not go for renewables? Arguably they are a better bet - certainly for the longer term. The paper assumes that renewables will be going ahead in parallel, but gives no idea of how much. Reactions to the scale of renewables will surely shape all other reactions and maybe dominate them (if its small). You might say the same for the absence/scale of nuclear.
Some do now say that renewables are insufficient- they can’t deliver what we need. If that was found to be the case for some reason, then BECCS, DECCS, MAB, or whatever, might be emergency options. But that’s not where we are at present. Indeed, there are strong eco-cases against most of the geo-tech carbon fixes. And, also, a strong strategic case against backing them - funding them will divert support from renewables. That’s a partisan view, and it leads to a scenario in which renewables dominate, with carbon removal and the rest being at best marginal. Same for nuclear. Pity this study didn’t tests out reactions to that scenario. But then we know the answer: renewables are massively popular most places around the world- nuclear not so much. Indeed, there is a strong case against it . And while it may be that there will be a role for changed farming methods and natural carbon sequestration, and some might see DECCS and BECCS as playing an interim role despite the land-use implications, surely most people would say it makes no sense to try to block out the sun, whether via screening interventions in space or in the atmosphere. Far better to use the sunlight (and the wind flows it creates) to make power.
None of the above is meant to be a criticism of the commitment outlined in the study to ‘participatory technology foresight’. That’s a welcome idea - it’s good to expand public involvement and the case for that is well argued in the papers emerging from this study. For example, it is claimed that it can lead to the ‘development of inclusive, culturally sensitive climate policies at a critical juncture in the global response to climate change’. In addition, it is claimed that it can be exploratory of new possibilities, with the ‘expression of positive or utopian futures’, creating hope and momentum for progress and futures, perhaps ‘beyond those presently supported by experts and technology developers.’ That is all well and good.
However, the points made above about renewables do highlight that, to be effective and fair, it is also important to set the framework for discussion properly. It was arguably not set widely enough. With the case for taking action to cut emission fast getting ever stronger, maybe the study needed to make clear that none of the futures should involve or enable continued use of fossil fuel. Then, with a fuller agenda, it may have produced different and, arguably, more useful results from the public.
The study does claim that its foresight approach ‘is particularly relevant for geoengineering technologies, as the ongoing debates surrounding their deployment now focus less on scientific questions and more on potential societal impacts, including environmental and ethical considerations, as well as geopolitical ramifications’. That may be true, but, arguably, the political issues concerning the role of renewables are just as open ended and important.
Participatory technology foresight (PTF) clearly is important as a way to explore possible futures and likely responses to them, and the study notes the old saying that ‘those who do not try to create the future they want, must endure the future they get’. There is also a hint in this study that PTF may actually help people to prepare for and accept new unusual technologies - and even perhaps reduce opposition to them should that emerge.
However, tragically, it may be that, in the end, it will be politics and power relations that dominate outcomes, whatever the technology or the foresight about it. And, even worse, the full impacts may only become clear post hoc, historically, as a somewhat depressing new study of solar power deployment in Africa suggests. It claims that Africa’s green-energy transition rests on hidden structures of exploitation and inequality, drawing on over 300 interviews across Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi & Cameroon. Would participatory technology foresight have helped avoid problems like that? It would be nice to think so, but more likely the best you might hope for is that it could identify the problems. If there are solutions to them, they lie in the political and social realm.
* A bit more optimistically, the UK government’s new land-use study says the there is enough land in England to meet climate and nature goals, while also producing more food and building new homes: only 1% of England’s land will be needed for renewables to help meet the UK’s climate goals by 2050. Carbon Brief’s land-use chart suggests that this is not much more than golf courses and airports use at present. Maybe at times hard data is all you need to make progressive choices...
Comments
Post a Comment