'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change
'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
8.9
通讯作者：
Lenton, Timothy M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bellamy, Rob;Chilvers, Jason;Lenton, Timothy M.
人们已经开始共同努力评估对地球气候系统进行的、被称为“地球工程”的大规模干预措施，以便为世界各地的政策制定者提供关键的决策支持。迄今为止，地球工程评估采用了狭隘的输入（例如背景、选项、方法和标准）和“封闭”的输出反身性，通常相当于单一和规范性的政策建议。在本文中，我们第一次开始通过向更广泛的框架、知识和未来路径“开放”评估输入和输出来解决这些局限性。我们使用多标准制图方法来评估碳和太阳能地球工程提案，以及与精选但多样化的专家和利益相关者群体一起应对气候变化的一系列其他选项。发现总体选项排名在参与者的观点和标准之间存在很大差异。尽管存在这些差异，但地球工程提案的排名通常低于缓解气候变化的方案（包括自愿行为改变和低碳技术）。所有期权的表现都受到不确定性的困扰，尽管程度不同，而且经常可以看到，在悲观分数下表现较好的期权的表现优于在乐观分数下表现较差的期权。一些调查结果与其他已发表的评估结果形成鲜明对比。特别是，平流层气溶胶注入以前优于其他地球工程方案，但当根据更广泛的标准（涵盖所有已确定的标准组）和其他应对气候变化的方案进行评估时，它的表现相对较差。最后，我们简要探讨了我们的分析对地球工程技术、其治理和评估的影响。 (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system known as 'geoengineering' in order to provide critical decision support to policy makers around the world. To date geoengineering appraisals have employed narrowly framed inputs (such as context, options, methods and criteria) and 'closed' output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by 'opening up' appraisal inputs and outputs to a wider diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We use a Multi-Criteria Mapping methodology to appraise carbon and solar geoengineering proposals alongside a range of other options for responding to climate change with a select but diverse group of experts and stakeholders. Overall option rankings are found to vary considerably between participant perspectives and criteria. Despite these differences, the ranks of geoengineering proposals are most often lower than options for mitigating climate change (including voluntary behaviour change and low carbon technologies). The performance of all options is beset by uncertainty, albeit to differing degrees, and it can often be seen that better performing options are outperformed under their pessimistic scores by poorer performing options under their optimistic scores. Several findings contrast with those of other published appraisals. In particular, where stratospheric aerosol injection has previously outperformed other geoengineering options, when assessed against a broader diversity of criteria (spanning all the identified criteria groups) and other options for responding to climate change it performs relatively poorly. We end by briefly exploring the implications of our analysis for geoengineering technologies, their governance, and appraisal. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.