‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change Rob Bellamy A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia November 2013 This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or ex- tract must include full attribution. 2 Abstract Deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system, known collectively as climate ‘geoengineering’, have been proposed in order to moderate anthropogenic climate change. A host of normative rationales for geoengineering has led to a growing number of appraisals to evaluate the different proposals and provide decision support. This thesis critically reviews current ap- praisals of geoengineering before developing and executing its own appraisal methodology in re- sponse to their limitations. These limitations concern: (1) the appraisal of geoengineering pro- posals in ‘contextual isolation’ of alternative options for tackling climate change; (2) inadequate methodological responses to the ‘post-normal’ scientific context in which climate change and ge- oengineering resides; and (3) a premature ‘closing down’ upon particular geoengineering pro- posals, principally stratospheric aerosol injection, through the exertion of power via framings. This thesis exhibits the findings of an ‘upstream’ participatory appraisal of geoengineering called Deliberative Mapping; an innovative analytic-deliberative methodology designed to ‘open up’ ap- praisal inputs and outputs to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. A diversity of international experts and stakeholders from across academia, civil society, industry and government, and of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (UK), were engaged using a combination of analytic Multi-Criteria Mapping specialist interviews and deliber- ative citizens’ panels, as well as a joint specialists-citizens workshop. The results present a radical- ly different view to other appraisals of geoengineering, where: (1) geoengineering proposals are most often outperformed by mitigation options, with stratospheric aerosol injection ranking par- ticularly poorly; (2) a greater diversity of perspectives and assessment criteria spanning the natu- ral, applied and social sciences reveals considerable uncertainties in all areas of research and deci- sion making; and (3) four propositions for governance emerge that advance sociotechnical fore- sight, technology control and public consent, the anticipation and alleviation of impacts, a demonstration of robustness, and ultimately, the responsible innovation of geoengineering. 3 4 To my parents, Hilary and Michael, for their eternal love, support and encouragement 5 6 Contents Abstract 3 List of Figures 15 List of Tables 17 Acknowledgements 19 Chapter 1: Introduction 23 1.1 A history of climate control 24 1.2 Defining ‘geoengineering’ 26 1.3 Thesis rationale and contribution 28 1.4 Research themes and questions 31 1.5 Thesis structure and content 32 Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspectives on Social Appraisal 36 2.1 The ‘participatory turn’ in science policy 37 2.1.1 Science in the risk society 37 2.1.2 Uncertainty and participation 40 2.1.3 From deficit to dialogue 43 2.1.4 Moving participation ‘upstream’ 45 2.2 ‘Closing down’ and ‘opening up’ social appraisal 47 2.2.1 Power and framing in ‘social’ appraisal 47 7 2.2.2 Diversity and reflexivity 50 2.3 Social appraisal as part of responsible innovation 53 Conclusions 57 Chapter 3: A Review of Climate Geoengineering Appraisals 59 3.1 Review method and results 59 3.2 Findings of geoengineering appraisals 63 3.2.1 Expert-analytic appraisals of geoengineering 63 3.2.2 Geoengineering governance and ethics 66 3.2.3 Participatory and deliberative appraisals of geoengineering 69 3.2.4 Media discourse analyses of geoengineering 74 3.3 Framing geoengineering appraisal 75 3.3.1 Problem definition and contextual situation 75 3.3.2 Appraisal methods and criteria selection 78 3.3.3 Reflexivity and output recommendations 84 Conclusions 86 Chapter 4: Methodology 88 4.1 Deliberative Mapping 88 4.1.1 Method selection 89 4.1.2 Method overview 89 4.1.3 Pilots 91 4.1.4 Framing 92 4.2 The specialist strand 94 4.2.1 Specialist scoping and recruitment 95 8 4.2.2 Multi-Criteria Mapping interviews 96 4.3 The citizen strand 96 4.3.1 Citizen scoping and recruitment 97 4.3.2 First citizens’ panel and resource website 98 4.3.3 Joint workshop and second citizens’ panel 99 4.4 Analytical methods 100 4.4.1 Quantitative analytical methods 100 4.4.2 Qualitative analytical methods 101 Chapter 5: Specialist Strand Results and Discussion 102 5.1 Options and criteria 102 5.1.1 Additional options 102 5.1.2 Criteria groups 103 5.2 Option scoring 105 5.2.1 Efficacy 105 5.2.1.1 The efficacy of different geoengineering proposals 105 5.2.1.2 The efficacy of different mitigation options 107 5.2.1.3 The efficacy of business as usual 108 5.2.2 Environment 108 5.2.2.1 The environmental impacts of different geoengineering proposals 108 5.2.2.2 The environmental impacts of different mitigation options 110 5.2.2.3 The environmental impacts of business as usual 112 5.2.3 Feasibility 112 5.2.3.1 The feasibility of different geoengineering proposals 112 9 5.2.3.2 The feasibility of different mitigation options 114 5.2.3.3 The feasibility of business as usual 115 5.2.4 Economics 115 5.2.4.1 The economics of different geoengineering proposals 115 5.2.4.2 The economics of different mitigation options 117 5.2.4.3 The economics of business as usual 118 5.2.5 Politics 118 5.2.5.1 The politics of different geoengineering proposals 119 5.2.5.2 The politics of different mitigation options 120 5.2.5.3 The politics of business as usual 121 5.2.6 Society 121 5.2.6.1 The social implications of different geoengineering proposals 121 5.2.6.2 The social implications of different mitigation options 123 5.2.6.3 The social implications of business as usual 124 5.2.7 Ethics 124 5.2.7.1 The ethics of different geoengineering proposals 124 5.2.7.2 The ethics of different mitigation options 125 5.2.7.3 The ethics of business as usual 126 5.2.8 Co-benefits 126 5.2.8.1 The co-benefits of different geoengineering proposals 127 5.2.8.2 The co-benefits of different mitigation options 127 5.2.8.3 The co-benefits of business as usual 127 5.3 Criteria weighting and option ranking 128 10 5.3.1 Criteria weighting 128 5.3.2 Option ranking 129 Conclusions 135 Chapter 6: Citizen Strand Results and Discussion 137 6.1 Framing and exploration 137 6.1.1 Issue framing 138 6.1.2 Option exploration 139 6.1.3 Citizen-specialist interaction 141 6.2 Options and criteria 141 6.2.1 Additional options 141 6.2.2 Criteria groups 142 6.3 Option scoring 145 6.3.1 Efficacy 145 6.3.2 Environment 146 6.3.3 Feasibility 148 6.3.4 Economics 149 6.3.5 Safety 150 6.3.6 Society 151 6.3.7 Ethics 152 6.4 Criteria weighting and option ranking 153 6.4.1 Criteria weighting 153 6.4.2 Option ranking 155 6.4.3 Option diversity 159 11 Conclusions 162 Chapter 7: Implications for Geoengineering Governance 164 7.1 Procedural evaluation 164 7.1.1 Evaluation method 165 7.1.2 Process performance 169 7.1.2.1 Evaluation and implications of the approach 169 7.1.2.2 Evaluation and implications of the resources 171 7.2 Supporting responsible innovation 173 7.2.1 Anticipating the impacts of geoengineering 173 7.2.2 Internal and institutional reflection on geoengineering 175 7.2.3 Inclusion and responsiveness in geoengineering governance 178 7.3 Propositions for geoengineering governance 181 7.3.1 Sociotechnical foresight 182 7.3.2 Technology control and consent 184 7.3.3 Anticipation and alleviation 188 7.3.4 Demonstration of robustness 189 Conclusions 191 Chapter 8: Conclusions 193 8.1 Framing geoengineering 193 8.2 Appraising geoengineering 196 8.3 Governing geoengineering 198 8.4 Limitations and future research 199 Conclusions 202 12 Appendices 204 Appendix 1: Methodology 205 Appendix 1.1 Appraisal options 205 Appendix 1.1.1 Options review 205 Appendix 1.1.2 Specialist options booklet 206 Appendix 1.1.3 Citizen options booklet 211 Appendix 1.2 Participant recruitment 225 Appendix 1.2.1 Specialist telephone interview protocol 225 Appendix 1.2.2 Citizen online survey protocol 226 Appendix 1.2.3 Citizen apportionment 229 Appendix 1.2.4 Participant consent forms 230 Appendix 1.3 Interview and workshop protocols 232 Appendix 1.3.1 First Multi-Criteria Mapping interview protocol 232 Appendix 1.3.2 Second Multi-Criteria Mapping interview protocol 233 Appendix 1.3.3 First citizens’ panel protocol 234 Appendix 1.3.4 Joint workshop and second citizens’ panel protocol 239 Appendix 1.3.5 Citizen scoring charts 244 Appendix 2: Results 245 Appendix 2.1 Example transcripts 245 Appendix 2.1.1 Specialist interview transcript 245 Appendix 2.1.2 First citizens panel transcript 261 Appendix 2.2 Criteria coding 273 Appendix 2.2.1 Specialist criteria coding 273 13 Appendix 2.2.2 Citizen criteria coding 275 Appendix 2.3 Option performance by criteria 276 Appendix 2.3.1 Option performance by criteria (specialists) 276 Appendix 2.3.2 Option performance by criteria (citizens) 278 Appendix 3: Published content from this thesis 279 Appendix 3.1 A review of climate geoengineering appraisals 279 Appendix 3.2 ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal 299 Appendix