Premium
Risk–risk governance in a low‐carbon future: Exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in climate geoengineering pathways
Author(s) -
Sovacool Benjamin K.,
Baum Chad M.,
Low Sean
Publication year - 2023
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/risa.13932
Subject(s) - software deployment , risk governance , corporate governance , climate change , risk management , greenhouse gas , risk analysis (engineering) , environmental resource management , business , climate change mitigation , carbon capture and storage (timeline) , environmental economics , environmental planning , environmental science , computer science , economics , ecology , finance , biology , operating system
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.