Naomi Vaughan

@article{28c8ec36df274d3a8481812a5bbac8f5,

title = {Contested framings of greenhouse gas removal and its feasibility: social and political dimensions},

author = {Laurie Waller and Tim Rayner and Jason Chilvers and Clair Gough and Irene Lorenzoni and Andy Jordan and Nem Vaughan},

doi = {10.1002/wcc.649},

issn = {1757-7780},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change},

volume = {11},

number = {4},

publisher = {Wiley},

abstract = {Prospective approaches for large‐scale greenhouse gas removal (GGR) are now central to the post‐2020 international commitment to pursue efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. However, the feasibility of large‐scale GGR has been repeatedly questioned. Most systematic analyses focus only on the physical, technical, and economic challenges of deploying it at scale. However, social and political dimensions will be just as important, if not more so, to how possible futures play out. We conduct one of the first reviews of the international peer‐reviewed literature pertaining to the social and political dimensions of large‐scale GGR, with a specific focus on two predominant approaches: Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and afforestation/reforestation (AR). Our analysis of 78 studies proposes two important insights. First, it shows how six key social and political dimensions of GGR feasibility–namely economics and incentives; innovation; societal engagement; governance; complexity and uncertainty; and ethics, equity, and justice–are identifiable and are emphasized to varying degrees in the literature. Second, there are three contested ways in which BECCS and AR and their feasibility are being framed in the literature: (a) a techno‐economic framing; (b) a social and political acceptability framing; and (c) a responsible development framing. We suggest this third frame will, and indeed should, become increasingly pertinent to the assessment, innovation, and governance of climate futures.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{744fb7d5049f4b4793a8988da780cea3,

title = {Mapping feasibilities of Greenhouse Gas Removal: Key issues, gaps and opening up assessments},

author = {Johanna Forster and Nem Vaughan and Clair Gough and Irene Lorenzoni and Jason Chilvers},

doi = {10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102073},

issn = {0959-3780},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-07-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions},

volume = {63},

publisher = {Elsevier},

abstract = {Greenhouse gas removal technologies and practices are essential to bring emissions to net zero and limit global warming to 1.5°C. To achieve this, the majority of integrated assessment models (IAMs), that generate future emissions scenarios and inform the international policy process, use large-scale afforestation and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The feasibility of these technologies and practices has only so far been considered from a relatively narrow techno-economic or biophysical perspective. Here, we present one of the first studies to elicit perspectives through an expert mapping process to open up and broaden the discussion around feasibility of afforestation and BECCS. Our stakeholders included business and industry, non-governmental organisations and policy makers, spanning expertise in bioenergy, forestry, CCS and climate change. Perspectives were elicited on 1) issues relating to BECCS with large-scale afforestation, and 2) specific criteria for assessing feasibility. Participants identified 12 main themes with 61 sub-themes around issues, and 11 main themes with 33 sub-themes around feasibility criteria. Our findings show important societal and governance aspects of feasibility that are currently under-represented, specifically issues around real-world complexity, competing human needs, justice and ethics. Unique to the use of these technologies for greenhouse gas removal are issues around temporal and spatial scale, and greenhouse gas accounting. Using these expert insights, we highlight where IAMs currently poorly capture these concerns. These broader, often more qualitative perspectives, issues and uncertainties must be recognised and accounted for, in order to understand the real-world feasibility of large-scale afforestation and BECCS and the role they play in limiting climate change. These considerations enable widening the scope to broader and deeper discussions about possible and desirable futures, beyond a focus on achieving net-zero emissions, attentive to the effects such decisions may have. We outline approaches that can be used to attend to the complex social and political dimensions that IAMs do not render. By complementing IAMs in this way opportunities can be created to open up considerations of future options and alternatives beyond those framings proposed by IAMs, creating opportunities for inclusion of knowledges, reflexivity and responsibility.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2044,

title = {Assessing carbon dioxide removal through global and regional ocean alkalinization under high and low emission pathways},

author = {A Lenton and R Matear and D Keller and V Scott and N Vaughan},

url = {https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/9/339/2018/},

doi = {10.5194/esd-9-339-2018},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Earth System Dynamics},

volume = {9},

pages = {339-357},

chapter = {339},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2083,

title = {The challenge of decarbonising four critical sectors to limit warming to 1.5textdegreeC},

author = {M Sharmina and C Le Quéré and C Wilson and ? Edelenbosch and R Freeman and D Gernaat and A Larkin and EW Littleton and M Traut and D P Van Vuuren and N Vaughan and R Wood},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{2013,

title = {Evaluating the use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in low emission scenarios},

author = {N Vaughan and C Gough and S Mander and EW Littleton and A Welfle and D Gernaat and D P van Vuuren},

url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa02},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {13},

abstract = {<p>Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is heavily relied upon in scenarios of future emissions that are consistent with limiting global mean temperature increase to 1.5 textdegreeC or 2 textdegreeC above pre-industrial. These temperature limits are defined in the Paris Agreement in order to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Here, we explore the use of BECCS technologies in a reference scenario and three low emission scenarios generated by an integrated assessment model (IMAGE). Using these scenarios we investigate the feasibility of key implicit and explicit assumptions about these BECCS technologies, including biomass resource, land use, CO2 storage capacity and carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment rate. In these scenarios, we find that half of all global CO2 storage required by 2100 occurs in USA, Western Europe, China and India, which is compatible with current estimates of regional CO2 storage capacity. CCS deployment rates in the scenarios are very challenging compared to historical rates of fossil, renewable or nuclear technologies and are entirely dependent on stringent policy action to incentivise CCS. In the scenarios, half of the biomass resource is derived from agricultural and forestry residues and half from dedicated bioenergy crops grown on abandoned agricultural land and expansion into grasslands (i.e. land for forests and food production is protected). Poor governance of the sustainability of bioenergy crop production can significantly limit the amount of CO2 removed by BECCS, through soil carbon loss from direct and indirect land use change. Only one-third of the bioenergy crops are grown in regions associated with more developed governance frameworks. Overall, the scenarios in IMAGE are ambitious but consistent with current relevant literature with respect to assumed biomass resource, land use and CO2 storage capacity.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{edcbf63a02a045559c1fce161e617118,

title = {Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver},

author = {Naomi E Vaughan and Clair Gough},

doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003},

issn = {1748-9326},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-08-31},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {11},

number = {9},

publisher = {IOP Publishing Ltd},

abstract = {Many integrated assessment models (IAMs) rely on the availability and extensive use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to deliver emissions scenarios consistent with limiting climate change to below 2 °C average temperature rise. BECCS has the potential to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, delivering 'negative emissions'. The deployment of BECCS at the scale assumed in IAM scenarios is highly uncertain: biomass energy is commonly used but not at such a scale, and CCS technologies have been demonstrated but not commercially established. Here we present the results of an expert elicitation process that explores the explicit and implicit assumptions underpinning the feasibility of BECCS in IAM scenarios. Our results show that the assumptions are considered realistic regarding technical aspects of CCS but unrealistic regarding the extent of bioenergy deployment, and development of adequate societal support and governance structures for BECCS. The results highlight concerns about the assumed magnitude of carbon dioxide removal achieved across a full BECCS supply chain, with the greatest uncertainty in bioenergy production. Unrealistically optimistic assumptions regarding the future availability of BECCS in IAM scenarios could lead to the overshoot of critical warming limits and have significant impacts on near-term mitigation options.},

note = {Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1587,

title = {Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver},

author = {N Vaughan and C Gough},

url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003/meta},

doi = {doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-08-01},

journal = {Environmental Research Letters},

volume = {11},

abstract = {<p>Many integrated assessment models (IAMs) rely on the availability and extensive use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to deliver emissions scenarios consistent with limiting climate change to below 2 textdegreeC average temperature rise. BECCS has the potential to remove carbon dioxide (CO_{2}) from the atmosphere, delivering textquoterightnegative emissionstextquoteright. The deployment of BECCS at the scale assumed in IAM scenarios is highly uncertain: biomass energy is commonly used but not at such a scale, and CCS technologies have been demonstrated but not commercially established. Here we present the results of an expert elicitation process that explores the explicit and implicit assumptions underpinning the feasibility of BECCS in IAM scenarios. Our results show that the assumptions are considered realistic regarding technical aspects of CCS but unrealistic regarding the extent of bioenergy deployment, and development of adequate societal support and governance structures for BECCS. The results highlight concerns about the assumed magnitude of carbon dioxide removal achieved across a full BECCS supply chain, with the greatest uncertainty in bioenergy production. Unrealistically optimistic assumptions regarding the future availability of BECCS in IAM scenarios could lead to the overshoot of critical warming limits and have significant impacts on near-term mitigation options.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1710,

title = {Expert assessment concludes negative emissions scenarios may not deliver},

author = {Naomi E Vaughan and Clair Gough},

doi = {DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095003},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

abstract = {<p>Many integrated assessment models (IAMs) rely on the availability and extensive use of biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to deliver emissions scenarios consistent with limiting climate change to below 2 degrees C average temperature rise. BECCS has the potential to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, delivering textquoterightnegative emissionstextquoteright. The deployment of BECCS at the scale assumed in IAM scenarios is highly uncertain: biomass energy is commonly used but not at such a scale, and CCS technologies have been demonstrated but not commercially established. Here we present the results of an expert elicitation process that explores the explicit and implicit assumptions underpinning the feasibility of BECCS in IAM scenarios. Our results show that the assumptions are considered realistic regarding technical aspects of CCS but unrealistic regarding the extent of bioenergy deployment, and development of adequate societal support and governance structures for BECCS. The results highlight concerns about the assumed magnitude of carbon dioxide removal achieved across a full BECCS supply chain, with the greatest uncertainty in bioenergy production. Unrealistically optimistic assumptions regarding the future availability of BECCS in IAM scenarios could lead to the overshoot of critical warming limits and have significant impacts on near-term mitigation options.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1356,

title = {Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation},

author = {N Vaughan and A Maas and O Boucher and P Forster and N Gruber and M Ha-Duong and M Lawrence and T Lenton},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change},

volume = {5},

pages = {23-35},

chapter = {23},

abstract = {<p>The portfolio of approaches to respond to the challenges posed by anthropogenic climate change has broadened beyond mitigation and adaptation with the recent discussion of potential climate engineering options. How to define and categorize climate engineering options has been a recurring issue in both public and specialist discussions. We assert here that current definitions of mitigation, adaptation, and climate engineering are ambiguous, overlap with each other and thus contribute to confusing the discourse on how to tackle anthropogenic climate change. We propose a new and more inclusive categorization into five different classes: anthropogenic emissions reductions (AER), territorial or domestic removal of atmospheric CO_{<font size="2">2</font>} and other greenhouse gases (D-GGR), trans-territorial removal of atmospheric CO_{<font size="2">2</font>} and other greenhouse gases (T-GGR), regional to planetary targeted climate modification (TCM), and climate change adaptation measures (including local targeted climate and environmental modification, abbreviated CCAM). Thus, we suggest that techniques for domestic greenhouse gas removal might better be thought of as forming a separate category alongside more traditional mitigation techniques that consist of emissions reductions. Local targeted climate modification can be seen as an adaptation measure as long as there are no detectable remote environmental effects. In both cases, the scale and intensity of action are essential attributes from the technological, climatic, and political viewpoints. While some of the boundaries in this revised classification depend on policy and judgement, it offers a foundation for debating on how to define and categorize climate engineering options and differentiate them from both mitigation and adaptation measures to climate change. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{8b194b7972fb4103aa03a67e489cd498b,

title = {Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options},

author = {Alice Bows-Larkin and Andrew Jordan and Tim Rayner and Heike Schroeder and Neil Adger and Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows and Corinne Le Quéré and Manoj Joshi and Sarah Mander and Nem Vaughan and Lorraine Whitmarsh},

doi = {10.1080/14693062.2013.835705},

issn = {1469-3062},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-11-01},

journal = {Climate Policy},

volume = {13},

number = {6},

pages = {751–769},

publisher = {Earthscan},

abstract = {Since the mid-1990s, the aim of keeping climate change within 2 °C has become firmly entrenched in policy discourses. In the past few years, the likelihood of achieving it has been increasingly called into question. The debate around what to do with a target that seems less and less achievable is, however, only just beginning. As the UN commences a two-year review of the 2 °C target, this article moves beyond the somewhat binary debates about whether or not it should or will be met, in order to analyse more fully some of the alternative options that have been identified but not fully explored in the existing literature. For the first time, uncertainties, risks, and opportunities associated with four such options are identified and synthesized from the literature. The analysis finds that the significant risks and uncertainties associated with some options may encourage decision makers to recommit to the 2 °C target as the least unattractive course of action. © 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{8b194b7972fb4103aa03a67e489cd498,

title = {Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options},

author = {Alice Bows-Larkin and Andrew Jordan and Tim Rayner and Heike Schroeder and Neil Adger and Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows and Corinne Le Quéré and Manoj Joshi and Sarah Mander and Nem Vaughan and Lorraine Whitmarsh},

doi = {10.1080/14693062.2013.835705},

issn = {1469-3062},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-11-01},

journal = {Climate Policy},

volume = {13},

number = {6},

pages = {751–769},

publisher = {Earthscan},

abstract = {Since the mid-1990s, the aim of keeping climate change within 2 °C has become firmly entrenched in policy discourses. In the past few years, the likelihood of achieving it has been increasingly called into question. The debate around what to do with a target that seems less and less achievable is, however, only just beginning. As the UN commences a two-year review of the 2 °C target, this article moves beyond the somewhat binary debates about whether or not it should or will be met, in order to analyse more fully some of the alternative options that have been identified but not fully explored in the existing literature. For the first time, uncertainties, risks, and opportunities associated with four such options are identified and synthesized from the literature. The analysis finds that the significant risks and uncertainties associated with some options may encourage decision makers to recommit to the 2 °C target as the least unattractive course of action. © 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1158,

title = {Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project},

author = {N Pidgeon and K Parkhill and A Corner and N Vaughan},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

journal = {Nature Climate Change},

abstract = {<p>Increasing concerns about the narrowing window for averting dangerous climate change have prompted calls for research into geoengineering, alongside dialogue with the public regarding this as a possible response. We report results of the first public engagement study to explore the ethics and acceptability of stratospheric aerosol technology and a proposed field trial (the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) &$#$39;pipe and balloon&$#$39; test bed) of components for an aerosol deployment mechanism. Although almost all of our participants were willing to allow the field trial to proceed, very few were comfortable with using stratospheric aerosols. This Perspective also discusses how these findings were used in a responsible innovation process for the SPICE project initiated by the UK&$#$39;s research councils.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{606,

title = {Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK},

author = {A Corner and K Parkhill and N Pidgeon and N Vaughan},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {In Press},

abstract = {<p align="justify" class="marginB3">Anthropogenic influence on the climate - and possible societal responses to it - offers a unique window through which to examine the way people think about and relate to the natural world. This paper reports data from four, one-day deliberative workshops conducted with members of the UK public during early 2012. The workshops focused on geoengineering - the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment - as one of three possible responses to climate change (alongside mitigation and adaptation). Here, we explore one of the most pervasive and wide-ranging themes to emerge from the workshops: whether geoengineering represented an unprecedented human intervention into &$#$39;nature&$#$39;, and what the moral consequences of this might be. Using the concept of &$#$39;messing with nature&$#$39; as an analytical lens, we explore public perceptions of geoengineering. We also reflect on why &$#$39;messing with nature&$#$39; was such a focal point for debate and disagreement, and whether the prospect of geoengineering may reveal new dimensions to the way that people think about the natural world, and their relationship to it. © 2013 The Authors.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{477,

title = {textquoterightOpening uptextquoteright geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change},

author = {R Bellamy and J Chilvers and N Vaughan and T Lenton},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {23},

pages = {926-937},

chapter = {926},

abstract = {<p>Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth&$#$39;s climate system known as &$#$39;geoengineering&$#$39; in order to provide critical decision support to policy makers around the world. To date geoengineering appraisals have employed narrowly framed inputs (such as context, options, methods and criteria) and &$#$39;closed&$#$39; output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by &$#$39;opening up&$#$39; 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. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1393,

title = {Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options},

author = {L Whitmarsh and N Vaughan and C Le Quéré and S Mander and M Joshi and A Jordan and T Rayner and H Schreiber and W N Adger and K Anderson and Alice Larkin},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

urldate = {2013-01-01},

journal = {Climate Policy},

volume = {13},

pages = {751-769},

chapter = {751},

abstract = {Since the mid-1990s, the aim of keeping climate change within 2 °C has become firmly entrenched in policy discourses. In the past few years, the likelihood of achieving it has been increasingly called into question. The debate around what to do with a target that seems less and less achievable is, however, only just beginning. As the UN commences a two-year review of the 2 °C targets, this article moves beyond the somewhat binary debates about whether or not it should or will be met, in order to analyse more fully some of the alternative options that have been identified but not fully explored in the existing literature. For the first time, uncertainties, risks, and opportunities associated with four such options are identified and synthesized from the literature. The analysis finds that the significant risks and uncertainties associated with some options may encourage decision-makers to recommit to the 2 °C targets as the least unattractive course of action. © 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1354,

title = {Interactions between reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 removal and solar radiation management},

author = {N Vaughan and T Lenton},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A},

volume = {370},

pages = {4343-4364},

chapter = {4343},

abstract = {<p>We use a simple carbon cycle-climate model to investigate the interactions between a selection of idealized scenarios of mitigated carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Two CO_{2} emissions trajectories differ by a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity. SRM is modelled as a reduction in incoming solar radiation that fully compensates the radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric CO_{2} concentration. Two CDR scenarios remove 300 PgC by afforestation (added to vegetation and soil) or 1000 PgC by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (removed from system). Our results show that delaying the start of mitigation activity could be very costly in terms of the CDR activity needed later to limit atmospheric CO_{2} concentration (and corresponding global warming) to a given level. Avoiding a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity is more effective at reducing atmospheric CO_{2} concentrations than all but the maximum type of CDR interventions. The effects of applying SRM and CDR together are additive, and this shows most clearly for atmospheric CO_{2} concentration. SRM causes a significant reduction in atmospheric CO_{2} concentration due to increased carbon storage by the terrestrial biosphere, especially soils. However, SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric CO_{2} concentration due to loss of carbon from the land.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{479,

title = {A review of climate geoengineering appraisals},

author = {R Bellamy and J Chilvers and N Vaughan and T Lenton},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change},

volume = {3},

pages = {597–615},

chapter = {597},

abstract = {<p>Deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth&$#$39;s climate system—known collectively as ‘geoengineering’—have been proposed in order to moderate anthropogenic climate change. Amidst a backdrop of many ways of framing the supposed normative rationales for or against their use, geoengineering proposals are undergoing serious consideration. To support decision makers in the multitude of governance considerations a growing number of appraisals are being conducted to evaluate their pros and cons. Appraisals of geoengineering are critically reviewed here for the first time using a systematic literature search and screen strategy. Substantial variability between different appraisals&$#$39; outputs originates from usually hidden framing effects relating to contextual and methodological choices. Geoengineering has largely been appraised in contextual isolation, ignoring the wider portfolio of options for tackling climate change—spanning mitigation and adaptation—and creating an artificial choice between geoengineering proposals. Most existing appraisal methods do not adequately respond to the post-normal scientific context in which geoengineering resides and show a strong emphasis on closed and exclusive ‘expert-analytic’ techniques. These and other framing effects invariably focus—or close down—upon particular sets of problem definition, values, assumptions, and courses of action. This produces a limited range of decision options which seem preferable given those framing effects that are privileged, and could ultimately contribute to the closing down of governance commitments. Emergent closure around particular geoengineering proposals is identified and argued to be premature given the need for more anticipatory, responsible, and reflexive forms of governing what is an ‘upstream’ domain of scientific and technological development. \emph{WIREs Clim Change} 2012, 3:597-615. doi: 10.1002/wcc.197</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1355,

title = {A review of climate geoengineering proposals},

author = {N Vaughan and T Lenton},

isbn = {01650009},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {109},

pages = {745-790},

chapter = {745},

abstract = {<p>Climate geoengineering proposals seek to rectify the current radiative imbalance via either (1) reducing incoming solar radiation (solar radiation management) or (2) removing CO_{2} from the atmosphere and transferring it to long-lived reservoirs (carbon dioxide removal). For each option, we discuss its effectiveness and potential side effects, also considering lifetime of effect, development and deployment timescale, reversibility, and failure risks. We present a detailed review that builds on earlier work by including the most recent literature, and is more extensive than previous comparative frameworks. Solar radiation management propsals are most effective but short-lived, whilst carbon dioxide removal measures gain effectiveness the longer they are pursued. Solar radiation management could restore the global radiative balance, but must be maintained to avoid abrupt warming, meanwhile ocean acidification and residual regional climate changes would still occur. Carbon dioxide removal involves less risk, and offers a way to return to a pre-industrial CO_{2} level and climate on a millennial timescale, but is potentially limited by the CO_{2} storage capacity of geological reservoirs. Geoengineering could complement mitigation, but it is not an alternative to it. We expand on the possible combinations of mitigation, carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management that might be used to avoid dangerous climate change. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.</p>},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1357,

title = {Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required},

author = {N Vaughan and T Lenton and J Shepherd},

year  = {2009},

date = {2009-01-01},

journal = {Climatic Change},

volume = {96},

pages = {29-43},

chapter = {29},

abstract = {N/A},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1358,

title = {The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options},

author = {N Vaughan and T Lenton},

url = {www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5539/2009/},

year  = {2009},

date = {2009-01-01},

journal = {Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics},

volume = {9},

pages = {5539–5561},

chapter = {5539},

abstract = {Climate geoengineering proposals seek to rectify the Earthtextquoterights current and potential future radiative imbalance, either by reducing the absorption of incoming solar (shortwave) radiation, or by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and transferring it to long-lived reservoirs, thus increasing outgoing longwave radiation. A fundamental criterion for evaluating geoengineering options is their climate cooling effectiveness, which we quantify here in terms of radiative forcing potential. We use a simple analytical approach, based on energy balance considerations and pulse response functions for the decay of CO2 perturbations. This aids transparency compared to calculations with complex numerical models, but is not intended to be definitive. It allows us to compare the relative effectiveness of a range of proposals. We consider geoengineering options as additional to large reductions in CO2 emissions. By 2050, some land carbon cycle geoengineering options could be of comparable magnitude to mitigation textquotedblleftwedgestextquotedblright, but only stratospheric aerosol injections, albedo enhancement of marine stratocumulus clouds, or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward its pre-industrial state. Strong mitigation, combined with global-scale air capture and storage, afforestation, and bio-char production, i.e. enhanced CO2 sinks, might be able to bring CO2 back to its pre-industrial level by 2100, thus removing the need for other geoengineering. Alternatively, strong mitigation stabilising CO2 at 500 ppm, combined with geoengineered increases in the albedo of marine stratiform clouds, grasslands, croplands and human settlements might achieve a patchy cancellation of radiative forcing. Ocean fertilisation options are only worthwhile if sustained on a millennial timescale and phosphorus addition may have greater long-term potential than iron or nitrogen fertilisation. Enhancing ocean upwelling or downwelling have trivial effects on any meaningful timescale. Our approach provides a common framework for the evaluation of climate geoengineering proposals, and our results should help inform the prioritisation of further research into them.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}