Rob Bellamy

Bio: Rob Bellamy is an academic researcher from University of Manchester. The author has contributed to research in topics: Climate change & Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 29 publications receiving 753 citations. Previous affiliations of Rob Bellamy include University of Oxford & University of East Anglia.

A review of climate geoengineering appraisals

Abstract: Deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth'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' 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.

‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change

Abstract: Concerted efforts have begun to appraise deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth's climate system known as ‘geoengineering’ 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 ‘closed’ output reflexivity often amounting to unitary and prescriptive policy recommendations. For the first time, in this paper we begin to address these limitations by ‘opening up’ 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.

Deliberative Mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists 'open up' appraisal of geoengineering.

Abstract: Appraisals of deliberate, large-scale interventions in the earth’s climate system, known collectively as ‘geoengineering’, have largely taken the form of narrowly framed and exclusive expert analyses that prematurely ‘close down’ upon particular proposals. Here, we present the findings from the first ‘upstream’ appraisal of geoengineering to deliberately ‘open up’ to a broader diversity of framings, knowledges and future pathways. We report on the citizen strand of an innovative analytic–deliberative participatory appraisal process called Deliberative Mapping. A select but diverse group of sociodemographically representative citizens from Norfolk (United Kingdom) were engaged in a deliberative multi-criteria appraisal of geoengineering proposals relative to other options for tackling climate change, in parallel to symmetrical appraisals by diverse experts and stakeholders. Despite seeking to map divergent perspectives, a remarkably consistent view of option performance emerged across both the citizens’ an...

Beyond the Tipping Point: Understanding Perceptions of Abrupt Climate Change and Their Implications

Abstract: This article explores the influence of personal values and ontological beliefs on people’s perceptions of possible abrupt changes in the Earth’s climate system and on their climate change mitigation preferences. The authors focus on four key areas of risk perception: concern about abrupt climate change as distinct to climate change in general, the likelihood of abrupt climate changes, fears of abrupt climate changes, and preferences in how to mitigate abrupt climate changes. Using cultural theory as an interpretative framework, a multimethodological approach was adopted in exploring these areas: 287 respondents at the University of East Anglia (UK) completed a three-part quantitative questionnaire, with 15 returning to participate in qualitative focus groups to discuss the issues raised in more depth. Supporting the predictions of cultural theory, egalitarians’ values and beliefs were consistently associated with heightened perceptions of the risks posed by abrupt climate change. Yet many believe...

Crafting a public for geoengineering

Abstract: In a short period of time, climate ‘geoengineering’ has been added to the list of technoscientific issues subject to deliberative public engagement. Here, we analyse this rapid trajectory of publicization and explore the particular manner in which the possibility of intentionally altering the Earth’s climate system to curb global warming has been incorporated into the field of ‘public engagement with science’. We describe the initial framing of geoengineering as a singular object of debate and subsequent attempts to ‘unframe’ the issue by placing it within broader discursive fields. The tension implicit in these processes of structured debate – how to turn geoengineering into a workable object of deliberation without implying a commitment to its reality as a policy option – raises significant questions about the role of ‘public engagement with science’ scholars and methods in facilitating public debate on speculative technological futures.

A General Framework for Analysing Diversity in Science, Technology and Society

Abstract: This paper addresses the scope for more integrated general analysis of diversity in science, technology and society. It proposes a framework recognizing three necessary but individually insufficient properties of diversity. Based on 10 quality criteria, it suggests a general quantitative non-parametric diversity heuristic. This allows the systematic exploration of diversity under different perspectives, including divergent conceptions of relevant attributes and contrasting weightings on different diversity properties. It is shown how this heuristic may be used to explore different possible trade-offs between diversity and other aspects of interest, including portfolio interactions. The resulting approach offers a way to be more systematic and transparent in the treatment of scientific and technological diversity in a range of fields, including conservation management, research governance, energy policy and sustainable innovation.

Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society

Abstract: This is the advice of a committee of leading American experts, chaired by Harvey Fineberg from the Harvard School of Public Health. It represents the fifth report in a series, commissioned by the US National Research Council, that considers how society can understand and cope with decisions about risks. The Committee's remit was to provide advice on risk characterisation, defined by the Research Council as the translation of `the information in a risk assessment ... into a form usable by a risk manager, individual decision maker, or the public'. In this book, the Committee has responded to the challenge clearly and authoritatively, beginning with a profound re-definition of `risk characterisation' that forms the basis for all that follows. In the view of the Committee, risk characterisation is a process. It is a process which starts before quantitative analysis of the risks, because it includes defining what risks to assess, and how most appropriately to assess them. It is an iterative process, in which assumptions are challenged and re-worked, and new information may be incorporated. It is a process in which qualitative judgements contribute to the fuller understanding of the problem; where quantitative scientific estimates, although important, contribute only a part. Most fundamentally, it is a process which, in a democratic society, needs to involve all those affected by the perceived problem and consequent decision. In the words of the Committee: `Experience shows that analyses, no matter how thorough, that do not address the decision-relevant questions, use reasonable assumptions, and meaningfully include the key affected parties can result in huge expenses and long delays and jeopardise the quality of understanding and the acceptability of the final decisions.' In other words, until or unless we expand our understanding of risk characterisation to include the process of defining the assessment itself, we are unlikely to make progress in gaining public acceptance for major decisions on health or environmental issues. For those without sufficient time to read the book, the ten-page summary provides a succinct overview of the Committee's advice, complete with bullet points and emboldened key phrases. However, the main body of the book (and particularly Appendix A, which discusses a number of case studies) is well worth scanning for its well-reasoned and well-structured discussion of the issues and the suggested way forward. Nor is the Committee lost in an `academic ivory tower'. It recognises that involvement of all those with vested interests cannot ensure a rapid or consensus solution or preclude some groups `dropping out' and choosing the route of litigation. It also recognises that allowing a `voice' for a wide range of interest groups can be time consuming and difficult to manage. However, the Committee argues: `While we are sensitive to concerns about cost and delay, we note that huge costs and delays have sometimes resulted when a risk situation was inadequately diagnosed, a problem misformulated, key interested and affected parties did not participate, or analysis proceeded unintegrated with deliberation. We believe that following [our] principles can reduce delays and costs as much as or more than it increases them.' So what are the Committee's principles? Getting the science right - any quantitative science that is undertaken must be of the highest standards. Getting the right science - this ensures that all the relevant risks are considered. Getting the right participation - this ensures that all those affected have a `voice' in the process. Getting the participation right - this ensures that the process is responsive to the needs of all the participants. Developing an accurate, balanced and informative synthesis - this should include a balanced understanding of the uncertainties in current knowledge, encompassing ignorance and indeterminacy as well as more quantifiable uncertainties. Again, in the words of the Committee: `These criteria are related. To be decision-relevant, risk characterisation must be accurate, balanced and informative. This requires getting the science right and getting the right science. Participation helps ask the right questions of the science, check the plausibility of assumptions, and ensure that any synthesis is both balanced and informative.' In order to set up an appropriate risk characterisation process, the Committee recommends that those responsible for it should `begin by developing a provisional diagnosis of the decision situation' in order to identify potential participants, allocate resources and structure the process. However, in doing so, they should `treat the diagnosis as tentative and remain open to change, always keeping in mind that their goal is a process that leads to a useful and credible risk characterization'. The Committee also stresses the need for those responsible for the process to `develop the capability to cope with attempts by some interested and affected parties to delay decision, and to develop a range of strategies for reaching closure'. This is likely to require the development of new skills and may require organisational changes `to improve communication across sub-units and to allow for the flexibility and judgement necessary to match the process to decision'. This balanced, reasoned and authoritative book is, in my opinion, a `must for all those involved in informing societal decision on risks.

Negative emissions—Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis

Abstract: With the Paris Agreement's ambition of limiting climate change to well below 2 °C, negative emission technologies (NETs) have moved into the limelight of discussions in climate science and policy. Despite several assessments, the current knowledge on NETs is still diffuse and incomplete, but also growing fast. Here, we synthesize a comprehensive body of NETs literature, using scientometric tools and performing an in-depth assessment of the quantitative and qualitative evidence therein. We clarify the role of NETs in climate change mitigation scenarios, their ethical implications, as well as the challenges involved in bringing the various NETs to the market and scaling them up in time. There are six major findings arising from our assessment: first, keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires the large-scale deployment of NETs, but this dependency can still be kept to a minimum for the 2 °C warming limit. Second, accounting for economic and biophysical limits, we identify relevant potentials for all NETs except ocean fertilization. Third, any single NET is unlikely to sustainably achieve the large NETs deployment observed in many 1.5 °C and 2 °C mitigation scenarios. Yet, portfolios of multiple NETs, each deployed at modest scales, could be invaluable for reaching the climate goals. Fourth, a substantial gap exists between the upscaling and rapid diffusion of NETs implied in scenarios and progress in actual innovation and deployment. If NETs are required at the scales currently discussed, the resulting urgency of implementation is currently neither reflected in science nor policy. Fifth, NETs face severe barriers to implementation and are only weakly incentivized so far. Finally, we identify distinct ethical discourses relevant for NETs, but highlight the need to root them firmly in the available evidence in order to render such discussions relevant in practice.