top of page

Deep Dive: Climate & Geo-Engineering

Deep Dive: Climate & Geo-Engineering

This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project.


Climate change impacts are one of the main threats to human society and natural ecosystems. Even though natural dynamics also have a substantial effect on climate, there is no doubt that current alterations of climate with the correlated impacts are manmade. Alongside continuing efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change, there may be possibilities to geoengineer climate systems to reduce or mask the impacts of climate change. There are also strong arguments for large-scale changes in social practices for adapting to and mitigating climate change. The big challenge comes with the necessary scale of interventions as those changes need to be large-scale and global, putting new challenges to all levels of governance from local to global.


About this topic

Many present drivers seem to indicate a gloomy future for the climate. The current individualistic mindsets drive overconsumption and overproduction. The offsetting of carbon emissions is sometimes used to compensate for dirty activities. Intense competition for natural resources is not safeguarding their sustainability. Bio-holistic worldviews confront anthropocentric views, but climate delay has emerged as the new denial and the lack of courage to address climate supremacists, i.e. the global wealthy, shows little change of direction. According to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the wealthiest top 1% were responsible for 15% of global emissions, nearly twice as much as the world’s poorest 50%, who were responsible for just 7%. Overly optimistic beliefs in tech or social transformation to solve it prevail, and there is a wide reluctance to consider broad system change.

There are also drivers towards desired futures. Improved understanding of climate and global change and the capacity and knowledge to purposefully shape nature and society provide better means to address climate change. Climate anxiety and perception of government inaction have triggered, for instance, the ‘Fridays for future’ movement, which contributes to the emergence of global conscience on the climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for justice. New understandings of human purpose and fairness also encourage the development of a wider range of responses like de-desertification, seaweed permaculture, ocean fertilization, carbon capture and storage, and solar radiation management. We may learn to protect the global commons, including indigenous cultures and atmospheric commons.

Economic growth in societies based on individual material gain, here-and-now-thinking, short political cycles, and lack of broad political agreement on alternative paths seem to keep us on the path to the climate crisis. Furthermore, exacerbated social inequalities may lead many to have no willingness or ability to participate in transitions. While we are overconfident with systems’ design, we underestimate natural forces and ecosystems. Emerging options for large-scale ‘geoengineering’ interventions in the climate system promise new opportunities and new risks, including novel geopolitical tensions.

There are diverse perceptions on geoengineering and possible social change towards potential acceptance or societal rejection. The planet lacks a fair and appropriate governance structure providing a framework on who might be entitled to carry out geoengineering projects in the name of the planet and what their responsibility is. There is no sufficient dialogue on what it means to be a responsible company, researcher, research organisation, or policy-maker in this context.

8132

0

0

EXTERNAL LINKS

OUTPUTS

DRAFT_FinalReport_DDClimateChange_20221125_V02.pdf

Blog

Albert Norström

MEET THE EXPERTS

kerstin.cuhls

kerstin.cuhls

Prof. Dr.
Duncan McLaren

Duncan McLaren

Sirkku Juhola

Sirkku Juhola

Guest Writer
Totti Könnölä

Totti Könnölä

Foresight, Innovation & Sustainability
Benjamin Sovacool

Benjamin Sovacool

Albert Norström

Albert Norström

Guest Writer

RELATED BLOGS

0

0

0

Developing Context Scenarios for Future EU R&I policies
Developing Context Scenarios for Future EU R&I policies
What types of EU R&I policies would be effective in the years to come? How shall these policies help us explore and respond to the uncertainties of the future? Finding answers to these questions requires first of all imagining the context, in which future EU R&I policies might be situated. For doing this, we need to explore developments both at global level and within the European Union.
Dr. Attila Havas

Dr. Attila Havas

Be part of the foresight community!

Share your insights! Let the Futures4Europe community know what you are working on and share insights from your foresight research or your foresight project.

RELATED PROJECTS

Futures of Green Skills and Jobs in Europe 2050
Futures of Green Skills and Jobs in Europe 2050
The project explores futures of green skills and jobs and their supply and demand in Europe 2050. We are making a deep dive into developments which are currently underway and will take us to different possible 2030s, according to events largely unpredictable and decisions bound by a number of constraints of diverse nature. The project is one of eight foresight deep dives of the project 'European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe' carried out by the Horizon Europe consortium.

5894

0

EU Logo no Text.jpg
Global Futures of Climate (Online Course)
Global Futures of Climate (Online Course)
Welcome to "Global Futures of Climate”, the first Course in our series on Global Systems designed for individuals and organisations committed to facing global challenges and finding solutions.This self-paced, online Climate Education Course is scientifically-based, and incredibly well researched to give you a deep understanding of our emerging world, providing a solid basis for you to build your personal, professional, and family futures. The innovative solutions offered align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Course Content includes 12 Lessons across 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, and Ecosystem. There are two lessons in each, examining the challenges, and addressing the alternatives. The Course Content incorporates over 100 learning resources, including:12 Lessons over 3 Modules: Climate Change, Energy Systems, Ecosystem.Four lessons per Module, two on the challenges, two addressing the solutions.12 Instructor videos (one per Lesson) to guide you through the Course Content and Resources .Over 40 expert videos (climate and ocean scientists, EC, UN, OECD, European Parliament, Carbon Brief, WWF, World Bank, Universities)Over 50 expert articles/reports (NASA, UN, IPCC, UNFCC, UNSDGs, State of the Planet, Blue Carbon Initiative, Greenpeace, Universities, UNDP, Global Commission for Adaptation, to name a few).36 reflection questions to journal your progress.60 fun quiz Qs to test knowledge gained.Certificate of Completion.

5347

0

EU Logo no Text.jpg
Deep Dive: Social Confrontations
Deep Dive: Social Confrontations
This deep dive is part of the European R&I foresight and public engagement for Horizon Europe project. A number of tendencies seem to conspire together to threaten societies with forms of social dysfunction and perhaps breakdown. Social cohesion and social capital have declined very substantially over the last generation or so. So too have levels of trust – not only in how much people feel they can trust others, but also public trust in government and in major institutions.  Many occupations command much less respect than they used to, including politicians, the media, the police, banks and big business.   At the same time democracy is increasingly threatened by factors such as growing political polarisation, caused not only by the increasing numbers of people who believe in conspiracy theories, but also by the growing importance of money in politics, by the growth of inequality and the rise of populism and the far right. To this mix will be added high levels of disruption caused by the development of AI and other new technologies. This expert group on social confrontations is intended to draw attention to issues which may give rise to disruptive social confrontations in the future within the EU – regardless of the parties involved.  Indeed, factors such as the political complexion of governments may change whether a dispute is between social movements and civic authorities, within governments and parliamentary assemblies, or between social groups. We have tried to identify the likely root causes of disruptive confrontations while acknowledging that most forms of confrontation are likely to be multi-causal. Four scenarios depict diverging paths how the development of social confrontations in the EU might shape our future society. From these scenarios we derived policy implications with a link to issues for research and innovation.

8287

0

EU Logo no Text.jpg
Deep Dive: Transhumanist Revolutions
Deep Dive: Transhumanist Revolutions
This deep dive is part of the Foresight towards the 2nd Strategic Plan of Horizon Europe project. Mass media from around the world is constantly heralding new scientific and technological breakthroughs that bring upon the promise of healthier, longer, more fulfilling lives: partially restoring the sight of blind people with the aid of artificial retinas, restoring partial movement of previously non-responsive limbs by linking a paralyzed person’s brain to a computer chip, artificial bones, skin, blood, along with more controversial endeavours: editing the human genome through gene-splitting techniques, stem cells primed to promote regeneration, cryogenics and many, many others. The transhumanist movement regards breakthroughs like these as springboards not only to healing people but to changing and improving humanity. Thanks to scientific developments in converging technologies such as biotechnology, neurotechnology, information technology and nanotechnology, humanity may be on the cusp of an enhancement revolution. The transhumanist movement considers this revolution - allowing people to control and fundamentally change their bodies and minds towards ‘humanity plus’ - as both inevitable and desirable. Some proponents of the movement go even further into envisioning a (more future distant) stage of civilization freed from bodily and even earthly constraints – a posthumanism marked by, for e.g., linking human intelligence to the AI, whole brain emulation (‘mind uploading’), or a superintelligence (technological singularity). ​ The transhumanist debate is expansive both in regard to the enhancements and the values and beliefs, ethics and the role of the government. An open-minded exploration of this topic would shy away from taking sides, a priori, with either the transhumanist movement (who speak of ‘transcendence’) or the conservative positions (who speak of ‘transgressions’), but explore the spectrum of positions with generosity and curiosity.  Moreover, such exploration should pierce through (and go beyond) the rhetorical strategies of either movement, and try to investigate with an open, critical mind, the substantive points of the debate. About this topic The deep dive on transhumanist revolutions opens an investigation of the human condition, around questions such as the ones listed below. In brief, C. Wright Mills’ questions will be asked of the enhanced: ‘‘In what ways are they selected and formed, liberated and repressed, made sensitive and blunted?’’ ​ Should the right to control one’s body include the right to augment one’s body? What would more radical human-tech ensembles mean for our lived experience? (1) If the ‘trans’ revolutions run their course towards ‘humanity-plus’, will we still be human &humane? How will various enhancements (e.g. bodily or cognitive) affect the embodied selves - our lived bodies - and their engagement with the world? (2) Will we still define ourselves (including) through our limitations and overcoming adversity or we will lose that one constituting factor? Is transhumanism about progressing or blunting the self? (3) To what extent it will affect our ability for inwardness if all the mending of the self is done outwardly (i.e. transforming humans to better fit the external world)? Would it be possible to also enhance morality, kindness, compassion, and other cardinal virtues or ‘pro-social’ feelings? Can a child have true autonomy if parents genetically design his or her capacities and proclivities? ​ The debate also explores new social orders, issues of justice or (in)equity, political and economic power: Will society’s repugnance/resistance to controversial/’suspect’ technologies water down, just as it did in the past with other technologies (e.g., oral contraceptives, IVF)? (4) Who decides what is a “limitation” and what is an “enhancement”? Will enhancements truly be optional? Will enhancements be afforded only by the rich, or some will progressively be considered essential services to be provided by the state in the spirit of social welfare? (negative vs. positive rights). Who is responsible for the enhancements, e.g. who guarantees the “spare parts” or is liable for damages?  (5) What kind of regulation is needed, e.g., limiting the enhancement or surveillance? How can public health systems be redesigned/reconfigured to deliver in this context? Could enhancements displace the sense of common humanity that has undergirded the democratic social contract for centuries? If liberal democracies go down the transhumanist path, will this mean diminishing free will and increased power of exploitation on the part of the government or, on the contrary, regulating, controlling, or banning enhancement technologies amount to a loss of personal autonomy and increased state power? ​ References (1) Sociotechnical ensembles (See Bijker and Pinch, 1984) posit that technologies are social through and through (their design and implementation are affected by social, cultural, economic and political context), just as society is technological through and through (technological artifacts are crucial to social order). Socio-technical ensembles constitute themselves through this interaction. See also Bijker, 1995, Latour on actor-network approach, 1992, Ihde on the role of tech in the interrelation of human beings and world when technological artifacts are involved, 1990. (2) See for e.g. the phenomenology of perception, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, where the body is central to our understanding of our relationships with others (through a space of ‘intercorporeality’) and to the wider ecological context we’re immersed within. (3) Even services now deemed banal, like google, that allows us to access any information at any time, have affected our memory, inclination towards mental effort; or google maps perfectly orienting us while robbing our sense of orientation. (4) Note that IVF’s role extended, from a medical procedure for otherwise infertile couples, to identifying embryos free of devastating genetic diseases. But it also extended to sex selection (5) See Fred Hirsch, 1977 on ‘positional goods’ – goods whose value to those who have them depends on others not having them.

3679

0

EU Logo no Text.jpg

RELATED DISCUSSION POSTS

Slowly getting serious about solar geoengineering

Blog

February 21, 2023

28

1

1

BSR Climate Scenarios

Tanja Schindler

September 29, 2022

10

0

0

Humans are not the only geoengineering species

Blog

September 7, 2022

11

0

1

Eco Oceanic Energy Systems

Jana Lingruen

September 5, 2022

2

0

0

Join our community!

We are all citizens. Register here now and get involved in this community and maybe even share your theme related project.

bottom of page