Deparment of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School, Falmer, UK.
Risk Anal. 2023 Apr;43(4):838-859. doi: 10.1111/risa.13932. Epub 2022 May 4.
Deliberations are underway to utilize increasingly radical technological options to help address climate change and stabilize the climatic system. Collectively, these options are often referred to as "climate geoengineering." Deployment of such options, however, can create wicked tradeoffs in governance and require adaptive forms of risk management. In this study, we utilize a large and novel set of qualitative expert interview data to more deeply and systematically explore the types of risk-risk tradeoffs that may emerge from the use of 20 different climate geoengineering options, 10 that focus on carbon dioxide or greenhouse gas removal, and 10 that focus on solar radiation management and reflecting sunlight. We specifically consider: What risks does the deployment of these options entail? What types of tradeoffs may emerge through their deployment? We apply a framework that clusters risk-risk tradeoffs into institutional and governance, technological and environmental, and behavioral and temporal dimensions. In doing so, we offer a more complete inventory of risk-risk tradeoffs than those currently available within the respective risk-assessment, energy-systems, and climate-change literatures, and we also point the way toward future research gaps concerning policy, deployment, and risk management.
正在进行审议,以利用越来越激进的技术选择来帮助应对气候变化和稳定气候系统。这些选择通常统称为“气候地球工程”。然而,此类选择的部署可能会在治理方面造成严重的权衡,并需要采取适应性的风险管理形式。在本研究中,我们利用一组大量的新颖定性专家访谈数据,更深入和系统地探讨了使用 20 种不同的气候地球工程选择(10 种侧重于二氧化碳或温室气体去除,10 种侧重于太阳辐射管理和反射阳光)可能出现的风险风险权衡类型。我们特别考虑:这些选择的部署会带来哪些风险?通过它们的部署可能会出现哪些类型的权衡?我们应用了一个框架,将风险风险权衡分为制度和治理、技术和环境以及行为和时间维度。通过这样做,我们提供了比风险评估、能源系统和气候变化文献中目前可用的更完整的风险风险权衡清单,并且还为政策、部署和风险管理方面的未来研究差距指明了方向。