Skip to main content

The Oxford Principles

Climatic Change volume 121, pages 499–512 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Scientific momentum is increasing behind efforts to develop geoengineering options, but it is widely acknowledged that the challenges of geoengineering are as much political and social as they are technical. Legislators are looking for guidance on the governance of geoengineering research and possible deployment. The Oxford Principles are five high-level principles for geoengineering governance. This article explains their intended function and the core societal values which they attempt to capture. Finally, it proposes a framework for their implementation in a flexible governance architecture through the formulation of technology-specific research protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee (2010) The Asilomar Conference recommendations on principles for research into climate engineering techniques. Washington DC 20006 Climate Institute. Available at: www.climate.org/PDF/AsilomarConferenceReport.pdf

  • Assessment framework for scientific research involving ocean fertilization, adopted 14 October 2010, LC/32/15

  • Baker T (1996) On the genealogy of moral hazard. Tex Law Rev 72:237–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39:45–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bickel JE, Lane L (2009) An analysis of climate engineering as a response to climate change. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Consensus Centre. Available at: http://www.aei.org/files/2009/08/07/AP-Climate-Engineering-Bickel-Lane-v.3.0.pdf

  • Blackstock J, Battisti D, Caldeira K, Eardley D, Katz I, Keith DW, Patrinos AAN, Schrag DP, Socolow RH, Koonin SE (2009) Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140

  • Bracmort K, Lattanzio RK, Barbour EC (2010) Geoengineering: Governance and technology policy. Congressional Research Service, Washington DC, R41371

  • Brumfiel G (2011) Spice put on ice. Available at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/spice_put_on_ice.html

  • Cassells EJ (2000) The principles of the Belmont Report revisited: how have respect for persons, beneficence and justice been applied to clinical medicine? Hast Cent Rep 30:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins (2012) Statement by NIH Director Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D. on the NSABB review of revised H5N1 manuscripts, April 20 2012. Available at http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04202012_NSABB.htm

  • Cressey D (2012) Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10645

  • Crutzen P (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma. Clim Chang 7:211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group (2010) Geopiracy: the case against geoengineering. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy2010_0.pdf

  • Fleming J (2010) Fixing the sky: the checkered history of weather and climate control. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriele EF (2003) The Belmont ethos: the meaning of the Belmont Principles for human subject protections. J Res Adm 34:19–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner SM (2010) A perfect moral storm: the ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross M (2009) Southern discomfort. Curr Biol 19:R143–R144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institution of Mechanical Engineers (2009) Geoengineering: giving us time to act? Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2012) Meeting report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering. Edenhofer, O et al (eds). IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam

  • Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:245–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith D, Parsons E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 436:426–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger T, Rayner S, Redgwell C, Savulescu J, Pidgeon N (2010) Memorandum submitted by T. Kruger et al. Available at http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/history/

  • Kunzig R, Broecker W (2008) Fixing climate: the story of climate science—and how to stop global warming. Profile Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte T (1996) High-reliability organizations: unlikely, demanding and at risk. J Conting Crisis Manag 4:60–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long J, Raddekmaker S, Anderson JG, Benedick RE, Caldeira K, Chaisson J, Goldston D, Hamburg S, Keith D, Lehman R, Loy F, Morgan G, Sarewitz D, Schelling T, Shepherd J, Victor D, Whelan D, Winickoff D (2011) Geoengineering: a national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Bi-Partisan Policy Centre, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten P, Owen R (2011) Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 497:293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGoey L (2009) Compounding risks to patients: selective disclosure is not an option. Am J Bioeth 9:35–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGoey L, Jackson E (2009) Seroxat and the suppression of clinical trial data: regulatory failure and the uses of legal ambiguity. J Med Ethics 36:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nature (2012) A charter for geoengineering (editorial). Nature 485:415

    Google Scholar 

  • Osofsky H (2009) Is climate change ‘international’? Litigation’s diagonal regulatory role. Va J Int Law 49:585–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon NF, Hood C, Jones D, Turner B, Gibson R (1992) Risk perception. In Risk- analysis, perception and management: report of a Royal Society study group. The Royal Society, London. pp. 89–134

  • Pidgeon N, Parkhill K, Corner A, Vaughan N (2013) Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat Clim Change, in press

  • Pielke R Jr (2010) The climate fix: what scientists and politicians won’t tell you about global warming. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal 23:961–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S (1987) Learning from the blind men and the elephant: or seeing things whole in risk management. In: Covello VT et al (eds) Uncertainty in risk assessment, risk management and decision making. Plenum Press, New York, pp 207–212

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S, Cantor R (1987) How fair is safe enough? Risk Anal 7:3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayner S, Redgwell C, Savulescu J, Pidgeon N, Kruger T (2009) Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research. Available at http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/history/

  • Rickels W, Klepper G, Dovern J, Betz G, Brachatzek N, Cacean S, Gussow K, Heintzenberg J, Hiller S, Hoose C, Leisner T, Oschlies A, Platt U, Proelβ A, Renn O, Schafer S, Zurn M (2011) Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system? Assessing the climate engineering debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel

    Google Scholar 

  • Robock A (2009) A biased economic analysis of geoengineering. Available at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/a-biased-economic-analysis-of-geoengineering/

  • Schrader-Frechette K (2002) Environmental justice: creating equality, reclaiming democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2011) The multi-level governance of climate change. In: Craig P, de Burca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 805–835

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd J, Cox P, Haigh J, Keith D, Launder B, Mace G, MacKerron G, Pyle J, Rayner S, Redgwell C, Watson A (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue H (1981) Exporting hazards. Ethics 91:579–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal 13:675–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist (2010) We all want to change the world (Editorial) April 3–9

  • UK Government (2010) Government response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 5th report of session 2009–10: the regulation of geoengineering. The Stationary Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Engineering (2009) The regulation of geoengineering. The Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2008) Novel materials in the environment: the case of nanotechnology. The Stationery Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • US Government Accountability Office (2010) Climate change: a coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts. Government Accountability Office 10–903, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979) Ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects (The Belmont Report). Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor DG (2008) On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 34(2):322–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker G, King D (2008) The hot topic: what we can do about global warming. Bloomsbury, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan FG (1983) Democratic theory and the boundary problem. In: Pennock JR, Chapman JW (eds) Liberal democracy. New York University Press, New York, pp 13–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigley TM (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilisation. Science 314:452–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Risk and social learning. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Praeger, New York, pp 275–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Yong E (2012) Mutant-flu paper published: controversial study shows how dangerous forms of avian influenza could evolve in the wild. Nature 485:13–14. doi:10.1038/485013a

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Steve Rayner, Clare Heyward, Tim Kruger and Julian Savulescu’s contributions were supported by the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. Steve Rayner and Julian Savulescu also acknowledge funding from the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) – grant ES/J007730/1. Nick Pidgeon’s contribution was supported through the EPSRC’s Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals project (EP/I014721/1) and the US National Science Foundation Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California at Santa Barbara (cooperative agreement SES 0938099).

The authors thank participants at the Geoengineering Workshop, hosted by the University of Washington College of the Environment, 23–24th April 2012, and Jason Blackstock, Dan Bodansky and Steve Gardiner for comments on an earlier version of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, 64 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 6PN, UK

    Steve Rayner

  2. Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Department of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Littlegate House, St Ebbes St, Oxford, OX1 1PT, UK

    Clare Heyward & Julian Savulescu

  3. Oxford Geoengineering Programme, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Old Indian Institute, 34 Broad St, Oxford, OX1 3BD, UK

    Tim Kruger

  4. School of Psychology, University of Cardiff, Tower Building, Park Place, Cardiff, CA10 3AT, UK

    Nick Pidgeon

  5. Faculty of Laws, University College London, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London, WC1H 0EG, UK

    Catherine Redgwell

Authors
  1. Steve Rayner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clare Heyward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Kruger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nick Pidgeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Redgwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julian Savulescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Rayner.

Additional information

This article is part of a special issue on “Geoengineering Research and its Limitations” edited by Robert Wood, Stephen Gardiner, and Lauren Hartzell-Nichols.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T. et al. The Oxford Principles. Climatic Change 121, 499–512 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2

Keywords

  • Open Publication
  • Select Committee
  • Governance Regime
  • Outdoor Experiment
  • Review Body