Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation

Rebecca Bendick, Kyla M. Dahlin, Brian V. Smoliak, Lori Kumler, Sierra J. Jones, C Athena Aktipis, Ezekiel Fugate, Rachel Hertog, Claus Moberg, Dane Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions change earth's climate by altering the planet's radiative balance. An important first step in mitigation of climate change is to reduce annual increases in these emissions. However, the many suggested means of limiting emissions rates have led to few actual changes in policy or behavior. This disconnection can be attributed in part to the difficulty of convening groups of stakeholders with diverse values, the polarizing nature of current political systems, poor communication across disciplines, and a lack of clear, usable information about emission mitigation strategies. Here, electronically facilitated ethical deliberation, a method of determining courses of action on common goals by collaborative discussion, is used to evaluate Pacala and Socolow's climate change stabilization strategies based on economic, technological, social, and ecological impacts across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Few previous analyses of climate mitigation strategies include all of these factors; rather, short-term technological feasibility studies and economic cost-benefit analyses predominate. After accounting for tradeoffs among disparate criteria, strategies involving end-user efficiency (e.g., efficient buildings and vehicles), wind, and solar power rank highest, while carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels options rank lowest. This electronically facilitated deliberation method offers an alternative to oppositional debate or cost-benefit analysis for assessing strategies where both quantitative and qualitative factors are important, information from disparate disciplines is relevant, and stakeholders are geographically dispersed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)140-147
Number of pages8
JournalWeather, Climate, and Society
Volume2
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010

Fingerprint

deliberation
mitigation
carbon
stakeholder
climate change
solar power
climate
wind power
political system
social impact
cost-benefit analysis
ecological impact
fuel cell
feasibility study
economics
biofuel
stabilization
greenhouse gas
planet
communication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Atmospheric Science
  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Bendick, R., Dahlin, K. M., Smoliak, B. V., Kumler, L., Jones, S. J., Aktipis, C. A., ... Scott, D. (2010). Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation. Weather, Climate, and Society, 2(2), 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WCAS1036.1

Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation. / Bendick, Rebecca; Dahlin, Kyla M.; Smoliak, Brian V.; Kumler, Lori; Jones, Sierra J.; Aktipis, C Athena; Fugate, Ezekiel; Hertog, Rachel; Moberg, Claus; Scott, Dane.

In: Weather, Climate, and Society, Vol. 2, No. 2, 04.2010, p. 140-147.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bendick, R, Dahlin, KM, Smoliak, BV, Kumler, L, Jones, SJ, Aktipis, CA, Fugate, E, Hertog, R, Moberg, C & Scott, D 2010, 'Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation', Weather, Climate, and Society, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1175/2010WCAS1036.1
Bendick, Rebecca ; Dahlin, Kyla M. ; Smoliak, Brian V. ; Kumler, Lori ; Jones, Sierra J. ; Aktipis, C Athena ; Fugate, Ezekiel ; Hertog, Rachel ; Moberg, Claus ; Scott, Dane. / Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation. In: Weather, Climate, and Society. 2010 ; Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 140-147.
@article{a5ef5dc3abf54da5833bf328cb219a01,
title = "Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation",
abstract = "Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions change earth's climate by altering the planet's radiative balance. An important first step in mitigation of climate change is to reduce annual increases in these emissions. However, the many suggested means of limiting emissions rates have led to few actual changes in policy or behavior. This disconnection can be attributed in part to the difficulty of convening groups of stakeholders with diverse values, the polarizing nature of current political systems, poor communication across disciplines, and a lack of clear, usable information about emission mitigation strategies. Here, electronically facilitated ethical deliberation, a method of determining courses of action on common goals by collaborative discussion, is used to evaluate Pacala and Socolow's climate change stabilization strategies based on economic, technological, social, and ecological impacts across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Few previous analyses of climate mitigation strategies include all of these factors; rather, short-term technological feasibility studies and economic cost-benefit analyses predominate. After accounting for tradeoffs among disparate criteria, strategies involving end-user efficiency (e.g., efficient buildings and vehicles), wind, and solar power rank highest, while carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels options rank lowest. This electronically facilitated deliberation method offers an alternative to oppositional debate or cost-benefit analysis for assessing strategies where both quantitative and qualitative factors are important, information from disparate disciplines is relevant, and stakeholders are geographically dispersed.",
author = "Rebecca Bendick and Dahlin, {Kyla M.} and Smoliak, {Brian V.} and Lori Kumler and Jones, {Sierra J.} and Aktipis, {C Athena} and Ezekiel Fugate and Rachel Hertog and Claus Moberg and Dane Scott",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1175/2010WCAS1036.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2",
pages = "140--147",
journal = "Weather, Climate, and Society",
issn = "1948-8327",
publisher = "American Meteorological Society",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choosing carbon mitigation strategies using ethical deliberation

AU - Bendick, Rebecca

AU - Dahlin, Kyla M.

AU - Smoliak, Brian V.

AU - Kumler, Lori

AU - Jones, Sierra J.

AU - Aktipis, C Athena

AU - Fugate, Ezekiel

AU - Hertog, Rachel

AU - Moberg, Claus

AU - Scott, Dane

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions change earth's climate by altering the planet's radiative balance. An important first step in mitigation of climate change is to reduce annual increases in these emissions. However, the many suggested means of limiting emissions rates have led to few actual changes in policy or behavior. This disconnection can be attributed in part to the difficulty of convening groups of stakeholders with diverse values, the polarizing nature of current political systems, poor communication across disciplines, and a lack of clear, usable information about emission mitigation strategies. Here, electronically facilitated ethical deliberation, a method of determining courses of action on common goals by collaborative discussion, is used to evaluate Pacala and Socolow's climate change stabilization strategies based on economic, technological, social, and ecological impacts across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Few previous analyses of climate mitigation strategies include all of these factors; rather, short-term technological feasibility studies and economic cost-benefit analyses predominate. After accounting for tradeoffs among disparate criteria, strategies involving end-user efficiency (e.g., efficient buildings and vehicles), wind, and solar power rank highest, while carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels options rank lowest. This electronically facilitated deliberation method offers an alternative to oppositional debate or cost-benefit analysis for assessing strategies where both quantitative and qualitative factors are important, information from disparate disciplines is relevant, and stakeholders are geographically dispersed.

AB - Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions change earth's climate by altering the planet's radiative balance. An important first step in mitigation of climate change is to reduce annual increases in these emissions. However, the many suggested means of limiting emissions rates have led to few actual changes in policy or behavior. This disconnection can be attributed in part to the difficulty of convening groups of stakeholders with diverse values, the polarizing nature of current political systems, poor communication across disciplines, and a lack of clear, usable information about emission mitigation strategies. Here, electronically facilitated ethical deliberation, a method of determining courses of action on common goals by collaborative discussion, is used to evaluate Pacala and Socolow's climate change stabilization strategies based on economic, technological, social, and ecological impacts across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Few previous analyses of climate mitigation strategies include all of these factors; rather, short-term technological feasibility studies and economic cost-benefit analyses predominate. After accounting for tradeoffs among disparate criteria, strategies involving end-user efficiency (e.g., efficient buildings and vehicles), wind, and solar power rank highest, while carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels options rank lowest. This electronically facilitated deliberation method offers an alternative to oppositional debate or cost-benefit analysis for assessing strategies where both quantitative and qualitative factors are important, information from disparate disciplines is relevant, and stakeholders are geographically dispersed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866361818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866361818&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1175/2010WCAS1036.1

DO - 10.1175/2010WCAS1036.1

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84866361818

VL - 2

SP - 140

EP - 147

JO - Weather, Climate, and Society

JF - Weather, Climate, and Society

SN - 1948-8327

IS - 2

ER -