4.4 Article

Actors, legitimacy, and governance challenges facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2023.2210464

关键词

Carbon dioxide removal; greenhouse gas removal; solar radiation management; climate justice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Institutional theory, behavioral science, sociology, and political science all stress the importance of actors in social change. However, little attention has been given to the actors involved in researching, promoting, or deploying negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies. This study uses expert interviews to empirically explore the types of actors associated with these climate interventions, investigate knowledge networks and patterns of involvement, and assess social acceptance, legitimacy, and governance.
Institutional theory, behavioral science, sociology and even political science all emphasize the importance of actors in achieving social change. Despite this salience, the actors involved in researching, promoting, or deploying negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies remain underexplored within the literature. In this study, based on a rigorous sample of semi-structured expert interviews (N = 125), we empirically explore the types of actors and groups associated with both negative emissions and solar geoengineering research and deployment. We investigate emergent knowledge networks and patterns of involvement across space and scale. We examine actors in terms of their support of, opposition to, or ambiguity regarding both types of climate interventions. We reveal incipient and perhaps unforeseen collections of actors; determine which sorts of actors are associated with different technology pathways to comprehend the locations of actor groups and potential patterns of elitism; and assess relative degrees of social acceptance, legitimacy, and governance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据