Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice by Tina Sikka

Author:Tina Sikka
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783030011475
Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Overall, a feminist practice of science requires looking more closely at the issue of causality in sulphate geoengineering and opening up inquiry such that diversity is included and deviations are not seen as inferior. This entails the inclusion of voices that would object to the conclusion that SO2 climate engineering research, through idealized models and simulations, represents what Curry et al. and Kravtiz et al. argued indicate that global radiative forcing, as a result of the increased CO2 emissions, can potentially be compensated for and mitigated by aerosol climate geoengineering (Curry et al. 2014; Kravitz et al. 2013).

Finally, on the subject of risk, it is the case that divergent interpretations of risk are not only difficult to publicize within the realm of hard science, because of the hostility towards values in science, but, as Longino argues, tend to be presented as ancillary, secondary or mitigatible when they are discussed. For instance, in the Kravitz, et al. article, it is noted that one of the likely outcomes of sulphate geoengineering is that tropics will be cooler and poles warmer against preindustrial averages (Kravitz et al. 2013). Even when specific risks are acknowledged, setting them up against such powerful statements as “Modeling studies have shown that geoengineering using stratospheric aerosols has the potential to reduce Earth’s global-mean surface temperature” (Ferraro et al. 2014) (Rasch et al. 2008; Jones et al. 2010), renders it difficult to conceive of alternative readings of risk, or expanding its remit, as anything more than secondary.

This is true despite the caveats made which, while valuable, do not rise to the level of qualitative pluralism. Moreover, qualifications, as well caveats, tend to either be subsumed into general support for climate engineering or presented as ancillary pr secondary – that is, as manageable deviations from the norm. In the GeoMIP piece this is done through a simple act of mentioning the potential consequence, risk, or lacunae in knowledge and moving on. The lack of model agreement on the effects of SO2 geoengineering on Antarctic sea ice, the inability to adequately consider potential extreme events – because they “manifest on shorter time scales” than the monthly means used (Kravitz et al. 2013, 8329), and unforeseen changes to the hydrological cycle (e.g. monsoons) are just a few examples. Consequently, alternative interpretations of the findings of studies like that of the GeoMIP are not able to adequately address issues of risk, hazard, and threat. Nor, as demonstrated, are they capable of integrating heterogenous perspectives with respect to gender, space, and population.

Geoengineering studies ignore the implications of a lack of ontological heterogeneity at their peril since it entail overlooking significant ontological and epistemological concerns related to heterogenous factors that inform causality and that have material consequences. The effects on women, minorities, local communities, the ozone, and marine life are not ancillary, nor are the “social or political structures, ecosystem dynamics, and many other potentially important issues”(Kravitz et al. 2013, 8331), mentioned, but not discussed, in the conclusion of the Kravitz et al. piece. These

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.