Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:28:21.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating Solar Radiation Management

The Roles of Public Engagement and Legislative Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Therese Gullberg  and
Jon Hovi
Anne Therese Gullberg
Affiliation:
CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo Pb 1129, Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
Jon Hovi
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Pb. 1097 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Climate engineering in general and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular raise profound and complex political, legal, social, and ethical questions that go well beyond technical feasibility issues. We consider three such questions. First, can existing EU decision-making processes accommodate sufficient public engagement to ensure legitimate decisions on SRM? Second, does politics influence the choice of legislative procedure for SRM regulation? Third, does the choice of legislative procedure influence the likelihood of SRM implementation? Three main conclusions emerge from our analysis. First, existing EU decision-making processes can – given certain conditions – accommodate considerable public engagement and hence ensure legitimate decisions on SRM. Second, politics matters; indeed, the EU's choice of legislative procedure concerning SRM may well become subject to political negotiations. Finally, the choice of legislative procedure may substantially influence the likelihood of SRM implementation.

Type
Special Issue on Regulating Climate Engineering in the European Union
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 75 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boucher, Olivier et al. “Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation.“ Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 5(1), (2014), pp. 23–35 Google Scholar.

2 Sheperd, John G. et al. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. (London: The Royal Society, 2009), at pp. 1 Google Scholar.

3 IPCC, 2013: Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, at p. 1449.

4 IPCC (2013). Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1462.

5 Corner, Adam, Pidgeon, Nick, and Parkhill, Karen. “Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’engagement.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(5), (2012), pp. 451–466 Google Scholar.

6 Anshelm, Jonas and Hansson, Anders. “Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering.” Energy Research & Social Science (2) (2014), pp. 135 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Carr, Wylie A., et al. “Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now.“ Climatic change, 121(3), (2013), pp. 567 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Poumadère, Marc, Bertoldo, Raquel, and Samadi, Jaleh. “Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2.5 (2011), pp. 712 et sqq Google Scholar.; Rayner, Steve et al. “The Oxford Principles.” Climatic change, 121(3), (2013), pp. 499 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Szerszynski, Bronislaw, et al. “Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won't mix.” Environment and Planning A 45(12), (2013), pp. 2809 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Carr et al., «Public engagement», supra note 6, at p. 570. Corner, Adam and Pidgeon, Nick. “Geoengineering the climate: the social and ethical implications.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 52(1), (2010), pp. 24–37 Google Scholar. Corner et al., « Perceptions », supra note 6; Szerszynski, et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6.

8 Barrett, Scott. “The incredible economics of geoengineering.“ Environmental and resource economics 39(1), (2008), pp. 45–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Victor, David G.. “On the regulation of geoengineering.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24(2), (2008), pp. 322–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 McClellan, Justin, Keith, David W., and Apt, Jay. “Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems.” Environmental Research Letters 7(3), (2012): 034019CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Tilmes, Simone et al. “Impact of very short-lived halogens on stratospheric ozone abundance and UV radiation in a geoengineered atmosphere.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 12.22 (2012): 10945 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Gabriel, C.J. and Robock, A.. “Stratospheric geoengineering impacts on El Niño/Southern Oscillation.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 15.6 (2015): 9173 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Tilmes, Simone et al. The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118.22 (2013), 11-036Google Scholar.

13 Davidson, Peter et al. “Lifting options for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering: advantages of tethered balloon systems.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370.1974 (2012): 4263 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

14 McClellan et al. “Cost analysis of SAI”, supra note 9.

15 Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J.. “Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.” Science, technology & human values 25(1), (2000), pp. 3 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Rowe, Gene and Frewer, Lynn J.. “A typology of public engagement mechanisms.” Science, technology & human values 30(2), (2005), pp. 251 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Gullberg, Anne Therese. “Access to climate policy-making in the European Union and in Norway.” Environmental Politics 20(4), (2011): 464 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Gullberg, Anne Therese. “Lobbying in Oslo or in Brussels? The case of a European Economic Area country.“ Journal of European Public Policy 22(10), (2015): 1531 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Schäfer, S. et al. The European Transdisciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering (EuTRACE): Removing Greenhouse Gases from the Atmosphere and Reflecting Sunlight away from Earth. (2015)

18 Skovgaard, Jakob. “EU climate policy after the crisis.” Environmental Politics 23(1), (2014), p. 1 et sqq., at p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 UNFCCC 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available online http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf Accessed 17 April 2015.

20 Schäfer et al. EUTRACE, supra note 17.

21 Szerszynski, et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6.

22 Pidgeon, Nick et al. “Exploring early public responses to geoengineering.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370(1974), (2012), pp. 4176 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

23 Corner et al. “Perceptions of geoengineering”, WIRES Climate Change, supra note 5.

24 Corner and Pidgeon, “Geoengineering the Climate”, supra note 7. Gardiner, S.M., “Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the Royal Society report”, 20(2) Environmental Values (2011), pp. 163 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Steve Rayner et al. “Draft Principles for the Conduct of Geoengineering Research (the ‘Oxford Principles’) reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.” The Regulation of Geoengineering (2010): 2009-2010.

26 Bronislaw Szerszynski, et al. “Why SRM and democracy won’t mix”, supra note 6; Macnaghten, Phil and Szerszynski, Bronislaw. “Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance.” Global Environmental Change 23(2), (2013), pp. 465 et sqq., at p. 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Carr et al., «Public engagement», supra note 6, at p. 575.

28 Carr et al., «Public engagement», supra note 6, at p. 574.

29 Szerszynski et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6, at. p. 2809.

30 Szerszynski et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6, at. p. 2812.

31 Szerszynski et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6, at. p. 2813

32 Szerszynski et al. “Why SRM and democracy won't mix”, supra note 6, at. p. 2809; Macnaghten and Szerszynski. “Living the global social experiment” supra note 26, at p. 465.

33 Corner and Pidgeon, «Geoengineering the climate», supra note 7, at p. 34.

34 Eriksen, Erik Oddvar and Fossum, John Erik, eds. Democracy in the European Union: integration through deliberation? Psychology Press, 2000 Google Scholar. Follesdal, Andreas and Hix, Simon. “Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik.“ JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3), (2006), pp. 533–562 Google Scholar. Majone, Beate Giandomenico. Europe's ‘democratic deficit’: The question of standards.” European law journal 4(1), (1998), pp. 5–28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Skogstad, Grace. “Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 10(3), (2003), pp. 321 et sqq., at p. 324CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Dryzek, John S.. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, 2012 Google Scholar.

37 Skogstad “Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness?”, supra note 35; Ahteensuu, Marko and Siipi, Helena. “A critical assessment of public consultations on GMOs in the European Union.” Environmental Values 18(2) (2009), 129 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Corner et al. “Perceptions of geoengineering”, supra note 5.

39 Corner et al. “Perceptions of geoengineering”, supra note 5.

40 Mercer, Ashley Megan, Keith, David W., and Sharp, Jacqueline D.. “Public understanding of solar radiation management.” Environmental Research Letters 6(4) (2011), 044006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Corner et al. “Perceptions of geoengineering”, supra note 5, at p. 456.

42 Mercer et al. “Public perception”, supra note 40, at p. 8.

43 Pidgeon et al. “Early responses”, supra note 22, at p. 4176.

44 Pidgeon et al. “Early responses”, supra note 22, at p. 4187.

45 Macnaghten and Szerszynski. “Living the global social experiment”, supra note 26. Karen Parkhill and Nick Pidgeon. “Public engagement on geoengineering research: preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops.” Understanding Risk Working (2011–11) 29 (2011); Pidgeon, Nick et al. “Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project.” Nature Climate Change, 3(5), (2013), pp. 451 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Rob Bellamy, Jason Chilvers, and Naomi E. Vaughan. “Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’appraisal of geoengineering.” Public Understanding of Science (2014), 0963662514548628, pp. 1 et sqq., at p. 14.

47 Alexa Spence et al. Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted in January – March 2010. Technical report (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-01), (School of Psychology, Cardiff University: Cardiff, 2010).

48 Pidgeon et al. “Deliberating stratospheric aerosols”, supra note 45.

49 Macnaghten and Szerszynski. “Living the global social experiment”, supra note 26.

50 Merk, Christine et al. Exploring public perception of solar radiation management. No. 1892. (Kiel: Kiel Working Paper, 2014)Google Scholar.

51 Amelung, Dorothee and Funke, Joachim. “Laypeople's Risky Decisions in the Climate Change Context: Climate Engineering as a Risk-Defusing Strategy?” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 21(2) (2015), pp. 533 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Rowe and Frewer. “Public participation methods”, supra note 15. Rowe and Frewer. “A typology”, supra note 15.

53 Rowe and Frewer. “A typology”, supra note 15, at p. 254.

54 Rowe and Frewer. “A typology”, supra note 15, at p. 255-256.

55 Dryzek, John Stanley et al. ‘Promethean Elites Encounter Precautionary Publics: The Case of GM Foods’.” Science, Technology, and Human Values (2009), 34, pp. 263 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Gullberg “Access to climate policy-making”, supra note 16

57 Rowe and Frewer. “A typology”, supra note 15, at p. 254.

58 European Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (2005/370/EC).

59 Commission White Paper. European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001)428.

60 Commission White Paper. European Governance, supra note 59.

61 Rayner et al. “Draft Principles”, supra note 25.

62 Rayner et al. “The ‘Oxford Principles”, supra note 6, at p. 506.

63 Dryzek et al. «Promethean Elites», supra note 55, at p. 263.

64 European Union, Directive 2001/18/EC, Article 9.1.

65 Marko Ahteensuu and Helena Siipi. “A critical assessment”, supra note 37, at p. 136.

66 Gullberg “Access to climate policy-making”, supra note 16, at p. 465.

67 Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1965), at p. 111 Google Scholar.

68 Wolff, Robert Paul. “Beyond tolerance,” in Wolff, Robert Paul, Moore, Barrington Jr. and Marcuse, Herbert, A Critique of Pure Tolerance. (Boston, MA.: Beacon Press, 1969), pp. 4 et sqq Google Scholar.

69 Wolff, “Beyond tolerance,” supra note 68, at p. 11.

70 Gullberg “Lobbying in Oslo or Brussels”, supra note 16.

71 Gullberg “Access to climate policy-making”, supra note 16, at p. 465.

72 Gullberg “Access to climate policy-making” supra note 16, at p. 465.

73 Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson. “Shooting where the ducks are: EU lobbying and institutionalized promiscuity” In: European Union: Power and Policy-Making, Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson (eds.), 2015, pp. 419 et sqq.

74 Gullberg, Anne Therese. “Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: The case of business and environmental interest groups in the European Union.” Energy Policy 36(8), 2008, pp. 2964 et sqqCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Wolff, “Beyond tolerance,” supra note 68, at p. 40.

76 Wolff. “Beyond tolerance.” supra note 68, at p. 46.

77 Gullberg, Anne Therese. “Pressure or information? Lobbying for binding renewable energy targets in the European Union.” Review of Policy Research 30(6) (2013): 611 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Hallstrom, Lars K., “Eurocratising enlargement? EU elites and NGO participation in European environmental policy.” Environmental Politics 13(1) (2004), pp. 175 et sqq., at p. 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Gullberg, “Access to climate policy-making”, supra note 16, at p. 473.

80 Baumgartner, Frank R. et al. Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. (University of Chicago Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 Doh, Jonathan P. and Guay, Terrence R.. “Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional-Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of Management Studies 43.1 (2006), pp. 47 et sqq., at p. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Richardson, , Jeremy, . “Government, interest groups and policy change.” Political Studies 48.5 (2000): 1006–1025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Friends of the Earth UK. Geoengineering. Briefing note. November 2009. Available online: http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/geoengineering.pdf.

84 Huffington post. Geo-engineering – A tool in the fight to tackle climate change, or a dangerous distraction. September 9, 2012. Available online: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jon-taylor/geoengineering-climate-change_b_1873231.html.

85 Schäfer et al. EUTRACE, supra note 17, at p. 91.

86 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26/10/2012, article 191.

87 TFEU, supra note 86, article 294.

88 Tsebelis. Vetoplayer, supra 51, at p. 265.

89 TFEU, supra note 86, article 238(2).

90 Skodvin, Tora, Gullberg, Anne Therese, and Aakre, Stine. “Targetgroup influence and political feasibility: the case of climate policy design in Europe.” Journal of European Public Policy 17(6), (2010), 854–873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 European Council 2014. European Council conclusions. Brussels 24 October. EUCO 169/14.

92 Schimmelfenning, Frank. Liberal Intergovernmentalism in Wiener, A., and Diez, T. (eds.) European integration theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (2004), pp. 75 et sqq Google Scholar.

93 Scharpf, Fritz, The Joint-decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. Public Administration 66 (1988): 239–278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Hovi, Jon and Sprinz, Detlef F., The Limits of the Law of the Least Ambitious Program. Global Environmental Politics 6 (2006): 28–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Schäfer et al. EUTRACE, supra note 17.

95 Reynolds, Jesse. “The International Regulation of Climate Engineering: Lessons from Nuclear Power.” Journal of Environmental Law (2014), pp. 1 et sqq., at p. 2Google Scholar.

96 European Parliament. «Parliament backs GMO opt-out for EU member states”. Press release. 13/01/2015. Available online: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20150109IPR06306/html/Parliament-backs-GMO-opt-out-for-EU-member-states.