清洁发展机制中负责任的创新:在分散的多中心治理体系中设计可持续的国家温室气体清除政策

IF 3.3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Peter Healey, Tim Kruger, Javier Lezaun
{"title":"清洁发展机制中负责任的创新:在分散的多中心治理体系中设计可持续的国家温室气体清除政策","authors":"Peter Healey, Tim Kruger, Javier Lezaun","doi":"10.3389/fclim.2023.1293650","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the assessment of climate policies, the social sciences are sometimes assigned a restricted instrumental role, focused on understanding and mitigating social and political “constraints” seen to impede the fullest achievement of a particular technological imaginary. The work presented in this paper draws on an alternative intellectual tradition, in which the technical, social and political dimensions of the problem are seen as closely intertwined, shaped by values and interests specific to each jurisdiction. The Greenhouse Gas Removal Instruments and Policies Project (GRIP), applied this approach to the design of policies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in the United Kingdom. GRIP explored what policy incentives and pathways might improve the societal assessment of different CDR technologies for further development and potential deployment. Here we analyze the views of UK policy actors questioned on different CDR options, and outline policy pathways to incentivize the research and demonstration processes necessary to determine what role CDR techniques should play in climate policy. We conclude by discussing recent policy developments in the UK, and the contours of a research agenda capable of supporting a responsible evaluation of CDR options.","PeriodicalId":33632,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Climate","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsible innovation in CDR: designing sustainable national Greenhouse Gas Removal policies in a fragmented and polycentric governance system\",\"authors\":\"Peter Healey, Tim Kruger, Javier Lezaun\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fclim.2023.1293650\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the assessment of climate policies, the social sciences are sometimes assigned a restricted instrumental role, focused on understanding and mitigating social and political “constraints” seen to impede the fullest achievement of a particular technological imaginary. The work presented in this paper draws on an alternative intellectual tradition, in which the technical, social and political dimensions of the problem are seen as closely intertwined, shaped by values and interests specific to each jurisdiction. The Greenhouse Gas Removal Instruments and Policies Project (GRIP), applied this approach to the design of policies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in the United Kingdom. GRIP explored what policy incentives and pathways might improve the societal assessment of different CDR technologies for further development and potential deployment. Here we analyze the views of UK policy actors questioned on different CDR options, and outline policy pathways to incentivize the research and demonstration processes necessary to determine what role CDR techniques should play in climate policy. We conclude by discussing recent policy developments in the UK, and the contours of a research agenda capable of supporting a responsible evaluation of CDR options.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1293650\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Climate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1293650","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在气候政策评估中,社会科学有时被赋予有限的工具性作用,侧重于理解和缓解被视为阻碍最充分实现特定技术想象的社会和政治 "制约因素"。本文介绍的工作借鉴了另一种知识传统,即问题的技术、社会和政治层面被视为紧密交织在一起,由每个管辖区特有的价值观和利益所决定。温室气体减排工具和政策项目(GRIP)将这种方法应用于英国二氧化碳减排(CDR)政策的设计。GRIP 探索了哪些政策激励措施和途径可以改善对不同 CDR 技术的社会评估,以促进进一步发展和潜在部署。在此,我们分析了英国政策参与者对不同 CDR 方案的质疑,并概述了激励研究和示范过程所需的政策路径,以确定 CDR 技术在气候政策中应发挥何种作用。最后,我们将讨论英国最近的政策发展,以及能够支持对 CDR 方案进行负责任评估的研究议程的轮廓。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responsible innovation in CDR: designing sustainable national Greenhouse Gas Removal policies in a fragmented and polycentric governance system
In the assessment of climate policies, the social sciences are sometimes assigned a restricted instrumental role, focused on understanding and mitigating social and political “constraints” seen to impede the fullest achievement of a particular technological imaginary. The work presented in this paper draws on an alternative intellectual tradition, in which the technical, social and political dimensions of the problem are seen as closely intertwined, shaped by values and interests specific to each jurisdiction. The Greenhouse Gas Removal Instruments and Policies Project (GRIP), applied this approach to the design of policies for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in the United Kingdom. GRIP explored what policy incentives and pathways might improve the societal assessment of different CDR technologies for further development and potential deployment. Here we analyze the views of UK policy actors questioned on different CDR options, and outline policy pathways to incentivize the research and demonstration processes necessary to determine what role CDR techniques should play in climate policy. We conclude by discussing recent policy developments in the UK, and the contours of a research agenda capable of supporting a responsible evaluation of CDR options.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Climate
Frontiers in Climate Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
233
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信