Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective
Viable and convivial technologies: Considerations on Climate Engineering from a degrowth perspective
复制标题
可行且令人愉悦的技术：从去生长角度思考气候工程
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.159
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Frederike Neuber
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Muraca;Frederike Neuber
面对气候变化的紧迫性，气候工程被认为是一种快速可行的技术解决方案。但与此同时，对它的批评也越来越多。本文阐述了气候工程技术的批判性分析，从一个角度来看，位于退化的话语。在第一部分中，提出了两种在退化辩论中讨论的方法：基于生物物理观点的生存能力概念和基于社会文化方法的欢乐概念。在第二步中，从应用伦理学的角度正式的论点被阐明并应用于三种气候工程技术：硫酸盐气溶胶注射，生物能源与碳捕获和储存，和Affiliate。在第三步中，一个扩展版本的权衡论点缓解与气候工程解决方案进行了讨论，从一个degrowth的角度来看：因此，在目前占主导地位的增长范式，气候工程技术可能会导致减少缓解努力。本文遵循应用伦理学的论证转向，并展示了一个形式化的论点，可以帮助澄清决策，并确定不同的方面的利害关系。本文阐述了反对部署CE技术的论点，并提出了一个新版本的权衡论点的基础上的degrowth的角度。从基于退化的技术批判的角度来看，唯一在伦理上可接受的气候工程技术类型是在特定条件下植树造林。
Faced with the urgency of climate change, Climate Engineering has been framed as a fast and feasible technological solution. At the same time, however, critique against it is getting increasingly louder. This paper articulates a critical analysis of Climate Engineering technologies from a point of view situated within the degrowth discourse. In the first part two approaches discussed within the degrowth debate are presented: the concept ofviabilitybased on a biophysical perspective and the concept ofconvivialitybased on a socio-cultural approach. In a second step formalized arguments from the point of view of applied ethics are articulated and applied to three Climate Engineering Technologies: Sulfate Aerosol Injection, Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, and Afforestation. In a third step, an extended version of the trade-off argument about mitigation versus Climate Engineering solution is discussed from a degrowth perspective: accordingly, within the current dominant growth paradigm, climate engineering technologies might lead to reduced mitigation efforts. The paper follows the argumentative turn in applied ethics and displays a formalization of arguments that can help clarify decision-making and identify the different dimensions at stake. The paper articulates arguments against the deployment of CE technologies and advances a new version of the trade-off-argument based on a degrowth perspective. From the point of view of a degrowth-based critique of technology, the only type of Climate Engineering Technology ethically acceptable would be afforestation under specific conditions.
登录
查看更多内容
我们可以两者兼得吗？
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
16.6
作者：
Keller, David P.;Feng, Ellias Y.;Oschlies, Andreas
通讯作者：
Oschlies, Andreas
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Lenton, T. M.;Vaughan, N. E.
通讯作者：
Vaughan, N. E.
影响因子：
30.7
作者：
Popp, Alexander;Humpenoeder, Florian;Dietrich, Jan Philipp
通讯作者：
Dietrich, Jan Philipp