Privatisation and De-globalisation of the Climate

This paper considers the issues raised by creating market incentives for private industry to engage in geoengineering. It argues that the benefits could include increased innovation and creativity in dealing with climate-related problems, and that the direct environmental risks are probably manageable. However, the political consequences are potentially destabilising and hard to predict. The creation of diffuse vested commercial interests may obstruct the achievement of the common good, as well as leading to global climate concerns being partially transformed into local weather concerns. While the commodification of the climate fits the long-term trend of increasing human management of the natural world, it is a step of alarming size and possibly hard to reverse.

If, as seems likely, the trend of global warming continues, it may become desirable or necessary to take compensatory measures more radical than simply reducing emissions of carbon dioxide: climate Engineering may become an understandable policy choice. Current ideas on how this could be done include seeding the oceans to induce a higher uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or the cooling of the earth by reflecting a proportion of sunlight, either through generation of reflective clouds or the placing of particles in the upper atmosphere. All of these are contested and unproven technologies. However, it seems on balance likely that it is possible, affordable, and within the reach of current science, to deliberately manipulate temperature and other aspects of the climate.

Copyright: © Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH
Quelle: Issue 03/2013 (September 2013)
Seiten: 7
Preis inkl. MwSt.: € 41,65
Autor: Prof. Dr. Gareth Davies

Artikel weiterleiten In den Warenkorb legen Artikel kommentieren

Diese Fachartikel könnten Sie auch interessieren:

A Matter of Scale: Regional Climate Engineering and the Shortfalls of Multinational Governance
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (9/2013)
Debates over climate engineering governance tend to assume this technology is an all-or-nothing affair that produces inherently global effects which intentionally can reachany nation or population. With the emergence of possible regional climate engineering methods that seek to limit their effects to relatively local areas, this governance debate may find itself left behind in some instances by disruptively novel technological options. If so, regional climate engineering may fit better under a combination of local transnational mechanisms and bilateral treaties rather than the existing broad-scale multinational frameworks available under multilateral treaties such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Regulating Geoengineering in International Environmental Law
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (9/2013)
Geoengineering can be viewed in two ways: as a potential cause for further environmental harm or as an option for addressing climate change in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So far, the existing legal response in multilateral environmental agreements has been in the former domain. This article shows that this approach does not necessarily provide comprehensive legal regulation of geoengineering as it appears to leave many governance and regulatory gaps. At the same time, developing a new legal instrument on geoengineering does not seem to be feasible for a number of political and other reasons. Therefore, we propose that the most appropriate option for the time being would be to continue with the current approach but enhance inter-regime cooperation and interaction. The article discusses possible formats for such regime cooperation.

A Prognosis, and Perhaps a Plan, for Geoengineering Governance
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (9/2013)
The idea of global climate engineering exists, but there are no global institutions capable of making legitimate choices about deploying and managing such an intervention. On the other hand, sub-global regions, mostly individual countries could, and in fact currently do, deploy smaller interventions against natural disasters without global decision-making. If governments actively plan to cooperate on developing and managing interventions to avoid, redirect or modify severe weather natural disasters related to climate change they may along the way learn about how to set intervention goals, make intervention choices, assess outcomes of the intervention and adapt the interventions accordingly. These crucial deliberation and management skills could grow as the interventions grow in response to more severe impacts. Governments should plan to use collaboration on natural disasters as a vehicle for developing the institutional capacity to manage the global climate.

Climate Engineering Research: A Precautionary Response to Climate Change?
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (6/2013)
In the face of dire forecasts for anthropogenic climate change, climate engineering is increasingly discussed as a possible additional set of responses to reduce climate change’s threat. These proposals have been controversial, in part because they - like climate change itself - pose uncertain risks to the environment and human well-being. Under these challenging circumstances of potential catastrophe and risk-risk trade-off, it is initially unclear to what extent precaution is applicable. We examine what precautionis and is not, and make a prima facie case that climate engineering may provide means to reduce climate risks. When precaution is applied to the currently pertinent matter of small to moderate scale climate engineering field tests, we conclude that precaution encourages them, despite their potential risks.

EEUU: la sartén por el mango
© Editorial OMNIMEDIA S.L. (7/2010)
El planeta se encuentra en plena ebullición, y no sólo desde el punto de vista socioeconómico; el calentamiento global es ya una realidad palpable en rincones muy diversos del mundo. La ONU prevé que la temperatura media de la superficie del planeta aumente entre 1,4 y 5,8 °C de aquí a 2100. Estados Unidos, con apenas el 4% de la población mundial y aproximadamente el 25% de las emisiones globales de CO2, tiene mucho que decidir respecto a esta “verdad incómoda” como apuntaba su conciudadano Al Gore, galardonado con el Nobel de la Paz en el año 2007. La sartén planetaria está al rojo vivo y los países industrializados, armados con el Protocolo de Kyoto como estandarte de la protección medioambiental, deciden sobre el resto de los habitantes del planeta y su futuro.



 Angemeldet bleiben

Passwort vergessen?