Philosophy and Technology 29 (2):173-188 (2016)

Authors
Abstract
Researchers have explored questions concerning public participation and consent in geoengineering governance. Yet, the notion of consent has received little attention from researchers, and it is rarely discussed explicitly, despite being prescribed as a normative requirement for geoengineering research and being used in rejecting some geoengineering options. As it is noted in the leading geoengineering governance principles, i.e. the Oxford Principles, there are different conceptions of consent; the idea of consent ought to be unpacked more carefully if, and when, we invoke it in the discussion. This article offers a theoretical reflection on different conceptions of consent and their place in geoengineering governance. More specifically, I discuss three models of consent, i.e. explicit consent, implied consent and hypothetical consent, and assess their applicability to geoengineering governance. Although there are different models of consent, much discussion of geoengineering governance has committed only to explicit consent. I note that such a commitment springs from a specific ideal political order. Accordingly, we should be wary of any naïve commitment to it so long as the political order we hope for remains open to debate. Finally, I illustrate two approaches to introduce consent into a geoengineering governance framework.
Keywords Geoengineering  Consent  Democracy  Legitimacy
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s13347-015-0203-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Ideal Vs. Non‐Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.Laura Valentini - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (9):654-664.
Risk, Uncertainty and Profit.Frank Knight - 1921 - University of Chicago Press.

View all 42 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Institutional Legitimacy and Geoengineering Governance.Daniel Edward Callies - 2018 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (3):324-340.
Indigeneity in Geoengineering Discourses: Some Considerations.Kyle Powys Whyte - 2018 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (3):289-307.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Public and Geoengineering Decision-Making: A View From Confucian Political Philosophy.Pak-Hang Wong - 2013 - Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 17 (3):350-367.
Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation.Jack Stilgoe - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (3):851-869.
Geoengineering as a Matter of Environmental Instrumentalism.Shane J. Ralston - forthcoming - In W. C. G. Burns & J. Blackstock (eds.), Geoengineering and Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Geoengineering and the Precautionary Principle.Kevin Elliott - 2010 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2):237-253.
Biobanks--When is Re-Consent Necessary?K. S. Steinsbekk & B. Solberg - 2011 - Public Health Ethics 4 (3):236-250.
Consent and Its Cousins.William A. Edmundson - 2011 - Ethics 121 (2):335-53.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-06-07

Total views
174 ( #61,785 of 2,455,435 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #84,265 of 2,455,435 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes