IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i1p124-133..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals

Author

Listed:
  • Raffael Himmelsbach

Abstract

This study contributes to a growing body of research that studies how different societal actors view climate engineering (CE) in an effort to ‘open up’ received framings and make them amenable to deliberations. CE is an umbrella term for different proposals of how to counteract global warming with technological means, some of which have sparked controversy. Drawing on fifteen interviews, the study explores how scientists who advise the European Commission on research funding priorities regarding climate change and sustainability view CE. They considered CE as treating the symptoms rather than the causes of climate change, as interfering in complex and unpredictable natural systems, and as engendering questions of distributive justice. They also stressed the complexity of governing climate change and expressed support for basic CE research. The concluding discussion dwells on the implications of foresight, the division of labor in research governance, and the challenge of poverty for governing technologies in the service of climate action.

Suggested Citation

  • Raffael Himmelsbach, 2018. "How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 124-133.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:124-133.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx053
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bart Van Ballaert, 2015. "The Politics behind the Consultation of Expert Groups: An Instrument to Reduce Uncertainty or to Offset Salience?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 139-150.
    2. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    3. Cathrine Holst & John R. Moodie, 2015. "Cynical or Deliberative? An Analysis of the European Commission’s Public Communication on Its Use of Expertise in Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 37-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ina Möller, 2020. "Political Perspectives on Geoengineering: Navigating Problem Definition and Institutional Fit Abstract: Geoengineering technologies are by definition only effective at scale, and so international poli," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 57-82, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Åse Gornitzka & Cathrine Holst, 2015. "The Expert-Executive Nexus in the EU: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(1), pages 1-12.
    2. John R. Moodie & Viktor Salenius & Michael Kull, 2022. "From impact assessments towards proactive citizen engagement in EU cohesion policy," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 1113-1132, October.
    3. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    4. David Popp & Jacquelyn Pless & Ivan Haščič & Nick Johnstone, 2020. "Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Energy Sector," NBER Chapters, in: The Role of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Economic Growth, pages 175-248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664.
    6. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    7. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Stéphane Lhuillery & Antoine Schoen, 2017. "The determinants of cleaner energy innovations of the world’s largest firms: the impact of firm learning and knowledge capital," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 311-333, May.
    8. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    9. Hoppmann, Joern, 2021. "Hand in hand to Nowhereland? How the resource dependence of research institutes influences their co-evolution with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    10. Juliana Subtil Lacerda & Jeroen C. J. M. Van den Bergh, 2014. "International Diffusion of Renewable Energy Innovations: Lessons from the Lead Markets for Wind Power in China, Germany and USA," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-28, December.
    11. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    12. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    13. Cameron Hepburn & Jacquelyn Pless & David Popp, 2018. "Policy Brief—Encouraging Innovation that Protects Environmental Systems: Five Policy Proposals," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 154-169.
    14. Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2012. "Missions-oriented RD&D institutions in energy between 2000 and 2010: A comparative analysis of China, the United Kingdom, and the United States," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1742-1756.
    15. Iris Wanzenböck & Koen Frenken, 2018. "The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1806, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2018.
    16. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Palma, Alessandro, 2017. "Characterizing the policy mix and its impact on eco-innovation: A patent analysis of energy-efficient technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 799-819.
    17. Consoli, Davide & Marin, Giovanni & Marzucchi, Alberto & Vona, Francesco, 2016. "Do green jobs differ from non-green jobs in terms of skills and human capital?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1046-1060.
    18. Ziesemer, Thomas, 2019. "The impact of mission-oriented R&D on domestic and foreign private and public R&D, total factor productivity and GDP," MERIT Working Papers 2019-047, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Reale, Filippo, 2019. "Governing innovation systems: A Parsonian social systems perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    20. Santos, Anabela M. & Coad, Alex, 2023. "Monitoring and evaluation of transformative innovation policy: Suggestions for Improvement," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:124-133.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.