Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


Judges:
Basic idea of a structured approach to screening and categorising geoengineering techniques is a sensible one. Would be more compelling if the author indicated how these first steps might then be developed into an approach to research/deployment/governance. The author could also elaborate how he/she sees this approach being implemented "all over the world" and explore the practicalities of e.g. statements like "irresponsible geoengineering should be criminalised". I'd also like to see thought given to how decisions would be made around categorisation. Who would do this? What would give them the authority and legitimacy to do it?

saying "fix goals first" ignores all the chicken-and-egg problems with controlling new technologies uncertain in potential benefits and risks ... No basis to know in advance what goals are feasible or desirable.Saying "do modeling, lab studies, and other zero-risk research first" is obvious and widely accepted. All the hard questions lie in the domain of how to regulate (outdoor) field research, particularly if it involves active (even tiny) environmental perturbations."Criminalize irresponsible geoengineering" -- presumes you know what counts as "irresponsible" -- and that legitimate authority exists to deem it criminal and assign consequences. Neither is the case. (And the proposal makes a big leap from guidelines adopted by research and funding institutions -- a reasonable first place to control CE -- to criminalization.)

Anita and Ben: We appreciate that you put some thought into the governance aspects of geoengineering, but there isn't enough of a particularized or novel plan here for the judges to advance it forward.

0comments
Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.