Global Climate Governance in 3D: Mainstreaming Geoengineering Within a Unified Framework

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 LAW University of Pittsburgh Law Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI:10.5195/lawreview.2022.863
G. Weil
{"title":"Global Climate Governance in 3D: Mainstreaming Geoengineering Within a Unified Framework","authors":"G. Weil","doi":"10.5195/lawreview.2022.863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The failure of conventional climate change mitigation to reduce climate-related risks to tolerable levels has spurred interest in more unconventional—and riskier—climate interventions. What currently sounds like science fiction could become a reality in the not-so-distant future: planes blasting particles into the sky to block the sun, vast deserts covered with mirrors, algae sucking carbon into the depths of the ocean. Scholars tend to lump all these unconventional climate measures together in a fuzzy category called “geoengineering,” and set them apart from conventional climate change mitigation. But the characteristics of climate interferences vary across three distinct dimensions, which the mitigation-geoengineering dichotomy fails to capture. First, interventions operate via different mechanisms, such as altering the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases or changing the fraction of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth. Second, the characteristic duration of interferences varies from several days to millennia. Third, interferences differ in terms of leverage—the scale of climate impact achievable with a fixed investment of resources. This Article argues that global climate governance would be best served by a unified approach that addresses all climate interferences based on these three dimensions. In such a unified framework, influence over multilateral decisions to deploy risky, high-leverage interventions could be used as an incentive to induce greater national investment in safer, more expensive decarbonization efforts. Scientific uncertainty should not deter early action on geoengineering governance; it should be viewed as an opportunity to lock in agreement on neutral principles while national governments remain behind a partial veil of ignorance regarding their interests.","PeriodicalId":44686,"journal":{"name":"University of Pittsburgh Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pittsburgh Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/lawreview.2022.863","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The failure of conventional climate change mitigation to reduce climate-related risks to tolerable levels has spurred interest in more unconventional—and riskier—climate interventions. What currently sounds like science fiction could become a reality in the not-so-distant future: planes blasting particles into the sky to block the sun, vast deserts covered with mirrors, algae sucking carbon into the depths of the ocean. Scholars tend to lump all these unconventional climate measures together in a fuzzy category called “geoengineering,” and set them apart from conventional climate change mitigation. But the characteristics of climate interferences vary across three distinct dimensions, which the mitigation-geoengineering dichotomy fails to capture. First, interventions operate via different mechanisms, such as altering the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases or changing the fraction of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth. Second, the characteristic duration of interferences varies from several days to millennia. Third, interferences differ in terms of leverage—the scale of climate impact achievable with a fixed investment of resources. This Article argues that global climate governance would be best served by a unified approach that addresses all climate interferences based on these three dimensions. In such a unified framework, influence over multilateral decisions to deploy risky, high-leverage interventions could be used as an incentive to induce greater national investment in safer, more expensive decarbonization efforts. Scientific uncertainty should not deter early action on geoengineering governance; it should be viewed as an opportunity to lock in agreement on neutral principles while national governments remain behind a partial veil of ignorance regarding their interests.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全球气候治理3D:统一框架内的主流地球工程
传统的气候变化缓解措施未能将气候相关风险降低到可容忍的水平,这激发了人们对更非常规、风险更高的气候干预措施的兴趣。现在听起来像科幻小说的东西可能在不久的将来成为现实:飞机向天空发射颗粒以阻挡阳光,覆盖着镜子的广阔沙漠,藻类将碳吸收到海洋深处。学者们倾向于将所有这些非常规的气候措施归入一个模糊的类别,称为“地球工程”,并将它们与传统的气候变化缓解措施区分开来。但是,气候干扰的特征在三个不同的维度上有所不同,这是减缓-地球工程二分法无法捕捉到的。首先,干预措施通过不同的机制发挥作用,例如改变大气中温室气体的浓度或改变地球吸收的入射太阳辐射的比例。其次,干扰的特征持续时间从几天到几千年不等。第三,干扰在杠杆方面有所不同,杠杆是指通过固定的资源投资可以实现的气候影响规模。本文认为,基于这三个维度,采用统一的方法解决所有气候干扰,将最有利于全球气候治理。在这样一个统一的框架中,对部署高风险、高杠杆干预措施的多边决策施加影响可以作为一种激励,促使各国加大对更安全、更昂贵的脱碳努力的投资。科学上的不确定性不应阻碍地球工程治理的早期行动;它应该被视为一个机会,在各国政府对自己的利益仍然部分无知的情况下,就中立原则达成一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: The Law Review is a student-run journal of legal scholarship that publishes quarterly. Our goal is to contribute to the legal community by featuring pertinent articles that highlight current legal issues and changes in the law. The Law Review publishes articles, comments, book reviews, and notes on a wide variety of topics, including constitutional law, securities regulation, criminal procedure, family law, international law, and jurisprudence. The Law Review has also hosted several symposia, bringing scholars into one setting for lively debate and discussion of key legal topics.
期刊最新文献
The Ninth Amendment: The "Hard Problem" of U.S. Constitutional Law Criminal Justice Technology and the Regulatory Sandbox: Toward Balancing Justice, Accountability, and Innovation From Past to Present: Funding the Pennsylvania Public Education System The Federal Courts Are Not Bias Free Zones: An Argument for Eliminating Diversity Jurisdiction Urgenda vs. Juliana: Lessons for Future Climate Change Litigation Cases
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1