Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice: The Standpoint of the Vulnerable

156 Pages·2019·2.36 MB·English

by  Tina Sikka

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN SOCIOLOGY
Tina Sikka
Climate
Technology,
Gender, and
Justice
The Standpoint of
the Vulnerable
1 23
SpringerBriefs in Sociology
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10410
Tina Sikka
Climate Technology,
Gender, and Justice
The Standpoint of the Vulnerable
Tina Sikka
Media and Cultural Studies
Newcastle University
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
ISSN 2212-6368 ISSN 2212-6376 (electronic)
SpringerBriefs in Sociology
ISBN 978-3-030-01146-8 ISBN 978-3-030-01147-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018957837
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Methodology/Theoretical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Climate Change and Geoengineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Feminism and Feminist Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Feminist Contextual Empiricism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Feminist Standpoint Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Technofeminism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 Geoengineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Climate Change: Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Geoengineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Actors and Status of Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Opponents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
SRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Effectiveness and Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Issues of Science, Modeling and Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3 FCE and Empirical Adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Feminist Contextual Empiricism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Longino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Scientific Virtues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Empirical Adequacy: Virtue One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
v
vi Contents
Boundary Object and Baselines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Modeling, Idealization, and Parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Visualizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Natural Analogues, Language, and Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Truth, Trust, and Consensus Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4 Ontological Heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Ontological Heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5 Novelty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6 Mutuality of Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7 Diffusion of Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
8 Applicability to Human Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Human Capabilities: Caring Science and the Gaia Hypothesis . . . . . . . . 128
Human Capabilities and Geoengineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Feminist Standpoint Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Technofeminism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Chapter 1
Introduction
Abstract This introduction provides preliminary remarks and clarifications on
structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise expla-
nations of the theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and
choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a
discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book including
feminist contextual empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and technofeminism.
Keywords Geoengineering · Feminist empiricism · Feminist standpoint theory ·
Technofeminism · Sociology of science studies
The complicated relationship between gender, natural or physical science, technol-
ogy and climate change has become a subject of a intense discussion in a variety of
settings from academia and governments to civil society and think tanks. Yet most
of these bodies tend to focus on one or two subjects often at the expense of others.
On the topic of climate change, as a sociological phenomenon, a trans or interdisci-
plinary approach is needed in order to map complex connections between diverse
areas. Because it is difficult to garner enough expertise in order to, for example,
answer questions about how the generation of scientific knowledge about climate
change affects gender norms, or what role gender plays in the construction of tech-
nological artifacts that might revolutionize how we generate power, it is important
to be clear about what questions require answering, what gaps in knowledge remain,
how this can be addressed, and whose interests does maintaining the status quo
serve.
This book aims to provide a set of unique perspectives on the interconnections
between the traditionally “silo-ized” categories of gender, climate science, and cli-
mate technologies using climate geoengineering as a case study. My objective is to
critically assess climate geoengineering science, modeling, and symbolism/dis-
course, by using contemporary feminist approaches to science and technology stud-
ies. In doing so, I seek to expose a unique set of challenges posed by climate change
and technological innovation by drawing on feminist contextual empiricism (FCE)
primarily but also feminist standpoint theory (FST) and technofeminism. Central to
this approach is the thesis that the feminist tenets of diversity, pluralism, situated
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1
T. Sikka, Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice, SpringerBriefs in Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_1
2 1 Introduction
knowledge, values, community, and sociality pose significant challenges to aggres-
sive solutions to climate change including that of climate geoengineering.
In this introduction, I begin with some preliminary remarks and clarifications on
structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise expla-
nations of theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and
choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a
discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book. I maintain
that feminist contextual empiricism, as articulated by Helen Longino, provides the
most persuasive critique of geoengineering by using feminist science studies.
Feminist standpoint theory and technofeminism deliver further insights that make
up for a handful of shortcomings of the feminist empiricist approach.
Methodology/Theoretical Approach
Methodologically, the approach I take is, first and foremost, multiperspectival with
respect to the contributions of feminist perspectives on science and technology
articulated above. While these frameworks have considerable differences in how
they take up the relationship between science, technology and gender, harnessing
contributions from all three, while focusing predominantly on FCE, provides a theo-
retically rich analytic framework from which significant insights can be assembled.
This study is also disciplinarily pluralist since, in that in addition to pulling from
contributions of the above noted feminist perspectives, also incorporated are knowl-
edge and ideas from the natural sciences, computer science, political science, inter-
national law, social constructivism and public policy. Yet, rather than resulting in a
discordant cacophony of divergent perspectives, this path has been both theoreti-
cally fruitful and analytically complementary since,
…a thorough-going disciplinary pluralism […] suggests that sometimes the perspectives
don’t fit nicely together on the same plane: they overlap or conflict or cannot both be held
at the same time, and yet you need both of them (Kellert 2006: 225).
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Over the past few years, a surfeit of scientific studies, research proposals, media
stories and government reports have coalesced around a solution to climate change
that would employ the latest and most cutting edge technologies. These geoengi-
neering or climate engineering proposals have garnered a particularly high level of
attention not only because of increased levels of media coverage, research invest-
ment, and government interest, but also in light of more mainstream mitigation
strategies, such as emission cuts and renewable energy technologies, being seen as
falling short of the 1.5–2  °C warming limit. These technical solutions are
Climate Change and Geoengineering 3
constituted by a wide variety of schemes designed to mitigate climate change
through direct interventions aimed at either removing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere (and sequestering it), or reflecting solar radiation from the earth itself
(thereby removing the ability of heat absorbing radiation to warm our climate).
The case for increased research into and use of renewable energy (wind, solar,
geothermal etc.) as a viable, scientifically sound, and less risky path towards
addressing climate change, rather than geoenginering, is well established (Panwar
et al. 2011; Twidell and Weir 2015; Luderer et al. 2014). Countries around the world
have made significant strides in adopting renewables as their price has fallen and
investment has risen. Global wind power generation in 2015 hit 7% of total global
power generation capacity, natural gas is now the second largest power generation
source at 22%, and solar now produces 1% of electricity use globally (World Energy
Council 2016). According Ren21,
Renewable power generating capacity saw its largest annual increase ever in 2016, with an
estimated 161 gigawatts (GW) of capacity added. Total global capacity was up nearly 9%
compared to 2015, to almost 2,017 GW at year’s end. The world continued to add more
renewable power capacity annually than it added (net) capacity from all fossil fuels com-
bined. In 2016, renewables accounted for an estimated nearly 62% of net additions to global
power generating capacity. Solar PV saw record additions and, for the first time, it accounted
for more additional capacity, net of decommissioning, than did any other power generating
technology. Solar PV represented about 47% of newly installed renewable power capacity
in 2016, and wind and hydropower accounted for most of the remainder, contributing 34%
and 15 .5%, respectively (Ren21 2017, 20).
Yet it is also the case that without a significant acceleration of its use, it is coupled
with drastic changes in the patterns of production and consumption, there is a very
real danger that the 2 °C target will be exceeded this century. This is where geoengi-
neering as an alternative that requires less in the way of behavioural and economic
change becomes quite attractive – particularly to those with vested interested in the
economic system remaining as it is including those with decision-m aking power in
the areas of politics and policy making, business and innovation, academia and the
press (Sikka 2013; Vidal 2012a, b; Panwar et al. 2011). Addressing its implications
through a variety of lenses, while also pushing for sustainable growth models based
on renewable energy, as such, has become of paramount importance.
Studies on and about geoengineering have been conducted with numerous reports
produced by such respected scientific bodies as NASA, The National Research
Council (NRC), and The Royal Society (The Royal Society 2009; NRC 2015;
NASA 2016). In 2010, a joint report was issued for the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Science and Technology and the United Kingdom House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee after a number of hearings held by Congress
and Parliament and extensive discussions by government agencies, scientists, aca-
demics, policy makers and other ‘stakeholder groups.’ Articles, both critical and
optimistic of the process, have appeared in The Guardian, The New York Times,
Scientific American, Newsweek, and Bloomberg (Fountain 2015a, b; Snyder-Beattie
2015; Venkataraman 2016; Rostom 2015).