S12h oxford geoengineering

presentation to the Third Transdisciplinary Summer School on Climate Geo-EngineeringQueens College University of Oxford

21st August 2012

Andy StirlingSPRU & STEPS Centre

Knowing Knowledge and Innovation:

some key implications for climate geo-engineering

‘Governance’? Know Thyself!

Question content and processes of knowledge production

Learn from studies of innovation and social choice

Appreciate Diversity of Methods, Principles and Procedures

Understand Key General Lessons

Geoengineering Challenges

Knowledge in Policy

on chemicals:“ …sound science will be the basis of the Commission's legislative proposal…” - EC RTD Commissioner, Philippe Busquin

on genetic modification:

“… this government's approach is to make decisions … on the basis of sound science”

- former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair

on energy:

“[n]ow is the right time for a cool-headed, evidence based assessment … I want to sweep away historic prejudice and put in its place evidence and science”

former UK Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks

Justification: move from political ‘problems’ to technical ‘puzzles’

on zoonotic pandemics:

“… sound science … science-based decisions” - UN WHO DG Margaret Chan

Ambiguity in Evidence

Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…

0.001 0.1 10 1000externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)low RISK high

coal

oil

gas

nuclear

hydro

wind

solar

biomass

Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…

Ambiguity in Evidence

0.001 0.1 10 1000

coal

oil

gas

nuclear

hydro

21

wind

solar

biomass

n =

‘externality’: cUS/kWh (after Sundqvist et al, 2005)

minimum maximum25% 75%

low RISK high

Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…

Ambiguity in Evidence

coal

oil

gas

nuclear

hydro

36

20

wind 18

solar 11

biomass 22

31

21

16

n =

Energy technologies: mature, sophisticated comparative analysis…

Ambiguity in Evidence

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional ‘risk practices’ suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

` marginalises, elides, ignores, (often) denies radical openness of ‘incertitude’:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action . Aristotle, Kant, Habermas know-how is less important than know-why

– eg: how to apply neuroscience?

Knowing Knowledge

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

` - incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects . Lao Tzu, Socrates, Keynes ‘unknowns’ as important as ‘knowns’

– eg: unexpected

mechanisms

in nanohealth

technologies

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise . Gödel, Dosi, Collingridge ”known knowns” foster hubris

– eg: dangers of thinking we know

halogenated hydrocarbons,

CFCs and the ozone hole

endocrine disruptors

methyl tertbutyl ether

- incompleteness: knowledge enabling utility is limited on wider effects

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action

- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance . Einstein, Ravetz, Beck… area / perimeter of known

– nonlinear

dynamics

of climate

and oceans

` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance

- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability . Ellul, Wynne, Tenner not existence but exposure to unknown

eg: nuclear

dependency

- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action

` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability

- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting . Kuhn, Arrow, Jasanoff… knowledge often not linear / additive

- eg: agronomy, ecology, soil science, molecular biology on GM

- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance

- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action

` - indeterminacy : effective knowledge does not preclude surprise

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- incommensurability: knowledges are plural and often conflicting

representing incomplete knowledge as expert ‘risk’ is deeply problematic

- ‘inversity’: increased knowledge can increase ignorance

- intractability: knowledge-commitments compound vulnerability

- incompleteness: knowledge is always limited as a basis for action

` - indeterminacy: effective knowledge does not preclude surprise

` marginalises, elides, ignores and (often) denies realities of knowledge:

` - insufficiency: knowledge efficacy is not normative basis for action

Knowing Knowledge

` Conventional expert practices suppress our ‘knowledge about knowledge’

- The Economist

SCIENCE

`“we'll restore science to its rightful place”… - President Obama

“Our hope … relies on scientific and technological progress” - Premier Wen Jiabao

PROGRESS

“you can’t stop progress” …

“One can not impede scientific progress.” - President Ahmadinejad

Science in Policy

SCIENCE

Lord Alec Broers, President, RAEng

…“history is a race to advance technology”

Technology:

“will determine the future of the human race’”

The challenge of government:

“to strive to stay in the race”…

The role of the public:

“to give technology the status it deserves”…

PROGRESS

TECHNOLOGY

Innovation in Policy

all innovation is progress…

Lisbon Strategy for: “pro-innovation action” - EU Council of

Ministers

“we need more pro-innovation policies” - PM Gordon

Brown

“… the Government’s strategy is … pro-innovation” - PM David Cameron

PROGRESS

TECHNOLOGY

Innovation Governance

all technology is progress…

all innovation is progress…

Lisbon Strategy for: “pro-innovation action” - EU Council of

Ministers

“we need more pro-innovation policies” - PM Gordon

Brown

“… the Government’s strategy is … pro-innovation” - PM David Cameron

GM critics are “anti-technology … members of the 'flat earth society’, opposed to modern economics, modern technology, modern science, modern life itself”

- UN DDG Malloch-Brown

“a pro- technology culture must be created…”

- Council for Science and Technology

PROGRESS

TECHNOLOGY

Innovation Governance

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives… no politics … no choice !

PROGRESS

TECHNOLOGY

Conventional Innovation Governance

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !

Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast? … who leads?

PROGRESS

TECHNOLOGY

Conventional Innovation Governance

TECHNOLOGY

Treats innovation as homogeneous: no distinctions … no alternatives … no politics … no choice !

Scope for debate restricted to: yes or no? … how much? how fast?’ … who leads?

Seriously neglects questions over: which way? …what alternatives? says who? …why?

PROGRESS

Conventional Innovation Governance

direction

space of pathwayconfigurations

Inevitability of Pathways?

The example of the bicycle…

… early designs took many exotic forms

direction

space of pathwayconfigurations

Conventional idea: eccentric configurations converge to ‘optimality’…

Inevitability of Pathways?

…but ‘optimality’ depends on context, moment and perspective

direction

Contingency of Pathways

multiple diverging directions

time

each starting point yields many feasible, viable innovation pathways

So… … the ‘big picture’ is more the other way around!

‘best path’ not just about determining necessity or ‘optimising’ markets …

deliberately or blindly societies close down the pathways they pursue

For instance... “sustainable energy”

Not all that is conceivable, feasible, viable – will be fully realisable

Realities of Innovation

Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways

social shaping (Bijker, 85) co-construction (Misa, 03) studies: expectations (Brown, 03) imaginations (Jasanoff, 05)

Realities of Innovation

Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways

history: contingency (Mokyr, 92) momentum (Hughes 83)path-dependence (David, 85) path creation

(Karnoe, 01)

Realities of Innovation

Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways

philosophy: autonomy (Winner, 77) closure (Feenberg, 91)/politics entrapment (Walker, 01) alignment (Geels, 02)

Realities of Innovation

Intended and unintended processes and power ‘close down’ pathways

economics: homeostasis (Sahal, 85) lock-in (Arthur, 89) regimes (Nelson & Winter, 77) trajectories (Dosi,

82)

Realities of Innovation

unproblematic

problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Smithson, Ravetz, Wynne ...

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

engineered components closed deterministic systems high frequency incidents familiar contexts

open dynamic systems low frequency events human factors changing contexts

INCERTITUDE

Beyond Risk contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about possibilities

- Socrates, Lao Tzu, Knight, Keynes, Shackle, Collingridge, Smithson, Ravetz, Wynne ...

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

engineered components closed deterministic systems high frequency incidents familiar contexts

open dynamic systems low frequency events human factors changing contexts

defining pros & cons contrasting impacts

diverse perspectives alternative options

novel agents or vectors surprising conditions new alternatives

wilful blinkers

INCERTITUDE

Beyond Risk contrasting aspects of ‘incertitude’

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about possibilities

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY aggregative analysis patronage, pressure political closure

insurance limitsreductive modelsstochastic reasoning

` science-based policy

institutional remits

political cultureliability protection

harm definitions indicators / metrics IGNORANCE

risk focus is shaped by power – Beck’s “organised irresponsibility”

Pressures for Closure institutional drivers of risk assessment

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

knowledge about possibilities

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling

Methods for ‘Opening Up’

precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude

precaution and participation are about rigour

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling

burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing

knowledge about possibilities

Methods for ‘Opening Up’

precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude

precaution and participation are about rigour

scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling

mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation

democratic procedures

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing

knowledge about possibilities

aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling

Methods for ‘Opening Up’

precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude

precaution and participation are about rigour

unproblematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

RISK

knowledge about possibilities

Methods for ‘Opening Up’

responsive civic research curiosity monitoring,

evidentiary presumptions flexibility, reversibility

diversity, resilience, agility, adaptability

scenarios / backcasting interactive modelling

mapping / Q-methods participatory deliberation

democratic procedures

problematic UNCERTAINTY

aggregated probabilities optimisation algorithms synthetic decision trees Delphi / Foresight predictive modelling

precautionary methods ‘open up’ appreciation of incertitude

precaution and participation are about rigour

burden of evidence onus of persuasion uncertainty factors decision heuristics interval analysis sensitivity testing

unproblematic

problematic

unproblematic problematic

knowledge about likelihoods

precautionary appraisal

participatory deliberation

definitive prescription

RISK

UNCERTAINTY

AMBIGUITY

IGNORANCE

knowledge about possibilities

Op

tion

s

Op

tion

s

humility reflexivity

adaptive learning

sustainability

safety

‘opening up’: options, issues, approaches, possibilities, perspectives

‘Opening Up’ Incertitude precaution and participation are about rigour

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance MTBE PCBs, DES; human systems; experimental lock-in

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

CFCs, EDCs, GMOs: use broader, open methods reviewed,

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation MTBE, CFCs: special vulnerability under

known threats

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment TBT, BSE; asbestos, C6H6, PCBs: monitoring over

models:

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

deliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion antimicrobials: acknowledge values, conflicts, politics,

power

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

alternative options pros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes BAT, BPM: note systematic blinkers on

superior approaches

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

deliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

transdisciplinarity collect all relevant knowledge, beyond ‘usual suspects’ MTBE; BSE: society, humanities, arts, … sceptics

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

deliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion

alternative options pros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

engage public independence through pluralism and robustness on values not as political correctness, but rigour of framings

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance ; ‘

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

deliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion

alternative options pros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

,

transdisciplinarity collect all relevant knowledge, beyond ‘usual suspects’

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

extend scope additive, cumulative, synergistic effects; life cycles, compliance ; ‘

humility on science sensitivities & proxies: mobility, persistence, bioaccumulation

pro-active research prioritise open monitoring & surveillance & targeted experiment

deliberate argument levels of proof, burden of evidence, onus of persuasion

alternative options pros, cons, justifications for range of options & substitutes

engage public independence through pluralism and robustness on values

Precaution, Participation, Adaptive Learning (cf: EEA, 2001)

explicit incertitude explicitly engage with uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance

,

‘open up’ politics ‘plural conditional’ (not unitary definitive) inputs to policy debate

from CGE technologies to CGE democracies

transdisciplinarity collect all relevant knowledge, beyond ‘usual suspects’

Narrow ‘decision rules’ to broad, open ‘technology democracy’

Catalysing New Political Spacescombining scientific rigour and democratic legitimacy

narrow

broad

closing down opening up

expert / analytic

participatory / deliberative

narrow

broad

closing down opening up

expert / analytic

participatory / deliberative

citizen’s juries

Catalysing New Political Spacescombining scientific rigour and democratic legitimacy

narrow

broad

closing down opening up

expert / analytic

participatory / deliberative

citizen’s juries

stakeholder negotiation

cost-benefit analysis

risk assessment structured

interviews

citizen’s juries

open hearings

Catalysing New Political Spacescombining scientific rigour and democratic legitimacy

narrow

broad

closing down opening up

expert / analytic

participatory / deliberative

citizen’s juries

decision analysis

stakeholder negotiation

sensitivity analysis

cost-benefit analysis

risk assessment

interactive modelling

structured interviews

narrative-based participant observation

multi-site ethnographic-

methods

citizen’s juries

consensus conference

open hearings

dissenting opinions

Catalysing New Political Spacescombining scientific rigour and democratic legitimacy

narrow

broad

closing down opening up

expert / analytic

participatory / deliberative

citizen’s juries

decision analysis

participatory rural appraisal

stakeholder negotiation

q-method

sensitivity analysis

deliberative mappingdo-it-yourself

panels

open space

cost-benefit analysis

risk assessment

interactive modelling

structured interviews

narrative-based participant observation

multi-site ethnographic-

methods

citizen’s juries

consensus conference

open hearings

dissenting opinions

multi-criteria mapping

scenario workshops

Catalysing New Political Spacescombining scientific rigour and democratic legitimacy

acknowledging inherently politics in geoengineering governance

‘Governance’ – Know Thyself!

Geoengineering Challenges

Question not only Knowledge – but knowledge production

Seriously Explore Choice – branching path-dependencies

Be aware of Power – in subject as well as object of scrutiny

Fallacies of Control – affect both sides of geoengineering debate

Rigour of Precaution – not emotive fear; reason under uncertainty

Open up and Broaden out – inputs and outputs to options appraisal

Urgency and Robustness – democracy and science reconciled