Case study (Sciencewise) of public dialogue project on geo-engineering.

1. Open Policy Making – Public
Dialogue
Monday 12 September 2015
Reema Patel, Policy Analyst,
Sciencewise

2. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
2
Case Study - Geoengineering
What is Geo-Engineering?
Deliberate large-scale interventions into the
Earth’s climate systems to counteract climate
change.
Controversial elements include
-Putting iron into the ocean to increase CO2
absorption.
-Mirrors in space to reflect the sun’s energy
into space
2

3. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
3
Geo-engineering – The Issues
The development of geo-engineering has
moral, social and ethical implications. For
example
-Reducing popular pressure for emissions
reduction
-The preservation of natural systems
-Any potential/unknown consequences of
geo-engineering
3

4. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Public Dialogue –
Sciencewise’s Role
Sciencewise worked with the Natural Environment Research Council
(NERC), the Royal Society, the Living with Environmental Change
programme (LWEC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council over a 14 month period from February 2010 to March
2011 to run public dialogues to inform investment decisions.
Number of public participants: 85
Number of experts/stakeholders = 74
Cost of dialogue project: £182,000
Sciencewise funding = £85,000
4

5. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Public Dialogue – Aims and
Objectives
‘to identify and understand public views on
geoengineering, including its moral, ethical and
societal implications, to help inform the future
planning, conduct and communication of
geoengineering research by NERC and other funding
bodies.’
‘It was also hoped that the dialogue may be of value
to science users, such as industry and policy
makers, who may play a role in further research and
deployment of geoengineering, as well as to science
communicators.’
5

6. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
How did we involve the public?
We ran core public dialogue events with 3 groups of 30 people across
the UK.The outcomes fed into a five day residential with 20-30 people.
and experts (a ‘sandpit’). The ‘sandpit’ led to recommendations on what
should be funded.
We also led on:
Engagement streams in partnership with the British Science Association.
Targeted discussion groups with specific sections of the public (young
people for next generation views, group of people living in an area at
risk of flooding).
The Royal Society hosted a meeting with NGOs
Qualitative online survey with responses from 65 people and
organisation.
6

7. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Key messages from public dialogue
Participants gave cautious support to research in geoengineering,
but there were questions about governance and ethics as well as
principles and caveats which emerged from dialogue.
- Strong emotive response that ‘natural’ systems should be respected.
- Ethically important to link geoengineering with continued mitigation
of carbon emissions
- Public views shaped by understanding and beliefs of the seriousness
of climate change.
- Some technologies were considered to be more acceptable than
other technologies.
- A majority favoured the combination of several different international
geoengineering approaches with international, national and
individual mitigation efforts
- Participants felt public dialogue should continue.

8. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Impact and Influence (1)
- The process had a positive impact on participants
(both expert and members of the public) in terms of
learning and experience.
- The immediate impact on the “sandpit” event was
considered important because the two projects that
were recommended for funding through the sandpit
were both to have public dialogue components as a
result of the dialogue process and one of the projects
was to use the outputs from the dialogue project
specifically.
8

9. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Impact and Influence (2)
The two projects emerging from the ‘Sandpit’ have
just reported their final results (launch at Royal
Society 26 November 2014):
• public and stakeholder engagement were built into the
Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate
Engineering (SPICE) project; and
• the methodology for the Integrated Assessment of
Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) framework for
comparing geoengineering proposals included
deliberative engagement with stakeholders and
publics.
The launch of the results generated media coverage
including being featured on the BBC Radio 4 Today
programme on 26 November 2014.
9

10. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Q&A
10

11. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Contact us
Reema Patel (reema.patel@sciencewise-erc.org.uk),
Policy Analyst, Sciencewise
Amy Pollard (amy.pollard@sciencewise-erc.org.uk),
Dialogue Manager, Sciencewise.
Website: www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk
Helpline: 01235 753 645
Geoengineering Case Study in Detail
http://www.sciencewise-
erc.org.uk/cms/geoengineering/ 11