Advertisement

Ontological Heterogeneity

  • Tina Sikka
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Sociology book series (BRIEFSSOCY)

Abstract

In this Chapter, the feminist virtue of ontological heterogeneity is addressed as it relates to SO2 climate engineering. In particular, the scientific practices that underlie sulfate geoengineering studies with respect to whether it fulfills the principles of feminist epistemology laid out by Helen Longino and FCE is examined. Overall, it is argued that this approach to climate change mitigation does not.

Keywords

Heterogeneity Modeling Feminist empiricism Helen Longino Geoengineering Sulphate Volcanoes Rural Urban 

References

  1. Alpert, P., et al. (2005). Global dimming or local dimming?: Effect of urbanization on sunlight availability. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(17), 17802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, M. (2015). Women and climate change in Bangladesh. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Angelo, H. (2017). From the city lens toward urbanisation as a way of seeing: Country/city binaries on an urbanising planet. Urban Studies, 54(1), 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arora-Jonsson, S. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change, 2(2), 744–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, P., et al. (2009). Greenhouse development rights: A proposal for a fair global climate treaty. Ethics Place and Environment, 12(3), 267–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, S. D., et al. (2015). Resilience to global food supply catastrophes. Environment Systems and Decisions, 35(2), 301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bin, S., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2005). Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions. Energy Policy, 33(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boden, T., et al. (2010). Global, regional, and national fossil-Fuel CO 2 emissions tech. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
  9. Boyd, R. (1991). Observations, explanatory power, and simplicity: Toward a non-Humean account. In R. Boyd, P. Gasper, & J. D. Trout (Eds.), The philosophy of science (pp. 349–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, P. G. (2007). Evaluating a technological fix for climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(24), 9915–9916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broto, V. C., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R., & Tapley, B. D. (2013). Contribution of ice sheet and mountain glacier melt to recent sea level rise. Nature Geoscience, 6(7), 549–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crutzen, P. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climate Change, 77, 211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuomo, C. J. (2011). Climate change, vulnerability, and responsibility. Hypatia, 26(4), 690–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Curry, C. L., et al. (2014). A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(7), 3900–3923.Google Scholar
  16. Dankelman, I. (2010). Gender and climate change: An introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dankleman, I. (2002). Climate change: Learning from gender analysis and women’s experience of organizing for sustainable development. Gender and Development, 10(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, S. J., Peters, G. P., & Caldeira, K. (2011). The supply chain of CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(45), 18554–18559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickinson, R. E. (1996). Climate engineering a review of aerosol approaches to changing the global energy balance. Climatic Change, 33(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dodman D. Blaming cities for climate change? (2009). An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. EPA. (2016). Global greenhouse gas emissions data. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector. Accessed 20 Nov 2016.
  22. Ferraro, A. J., Highwood, E. J., & Charlton-Perez, A. J. (2014). Weakened tropical circulation and reduced precipitation in response to geoengineering. Environmental Research Letters, 9(1), 014001. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/1/014001/meta. Accessed 22 Nov 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fink, J. H. (2013). Geoengineering cities to stabilise climate. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, ES5, 242–248.Google Scholar
  24. Forster, P., et al. (2007). Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In S. Solomon et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gardiner, S. M. (2004). Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114(3), 555–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ge, M., et al. (2014). 6 graphs explain the world’s top 10 emitters. World Resource Institute. http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/11/6-graphs-explain-world’s-top-10-emitters. Accessed 22 Nov 2016.
  27. Gerber, P. J., Henderson, B., & Makkar, H. P. (2013). Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in livestock production. A review of technical options for non-CO 2 emissions. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  28. Grasswick, H. (2014). Understanding epistemic normativity in feminist epistemology. In J. Matheson & R. Vitz (Eds.), The ethics of belief: Individual and social (pp. 216–243). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habtezion, S. (2013). Overview of linkages between gender and climate change. United Nations Development Programme. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/gender/Gender%20and%20Environment/PB1-AP-Overview-Gender-and-climate-change.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2016.
  30. Heede, R. (2014). Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Climatic Change, 122, 229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heinonen, J., & Junnila, S. (2011). A carbon consumption comparison of rural and urban lifestyles. Sustainability, 3, 1234–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hessing, M. (1993). Women and sustainability: Ecofeminist perspectives. Alternatives Journal, 1(19), 14.Google Scholar
  33. Hodder, I. (1997). Interpreting archaeology: Finding meaning in the past. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., & Lunt, D. J. (2010). Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(18), L18702.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044447 Accessed 21 Jan 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Izrael, Y. A., et al. (2009). Field experiment on studying solar radiation passing through aerosol layers. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 34(5), 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, A., et al. (2010). Geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection: Results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 5999–6006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keith, D. W., Parson, E., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Research on global sun block needed now. Nature, 463(7280), 426–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kellert, S. H., et al. (2006). Scientific pluralism (Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science). Minnesota: Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  39. Key, N., & Tallard, G. (2012). Mitigating methane emissions from livestock: A global analysis of sectoral policies. Climatic Change, 112(2), 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Khondker, H. H., & Schuerkens, U. (2014). Social transformation, development and globalization. Sociopedia.isa, International Sociological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601423.
  41. Kourany, J. A. (2003). A philosophy of science for the twenty-first century. Philosophy of science, 70(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kovács, Á. (2012). Gender in the substance of chemistry, Part 1: The ideal gas. HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 18(2), 95–120. http://hyle.org/journal/issues/18-2/kovacs1.htm. Accessed 19 Dec 2016.
  43. Kravitz, B., et al. (2013). Climate model response from the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 118, 8320–8332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lascano, C. E., & Cardenas, E. (2010). Alternatives for methane emission mitigation in livestock systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leichenko, R. (2011). Climate change and urban resilience. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 3(3), 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Longino, H. E. (1992). Taking gender seriously in philosophy of science. PSA, 2, 333–340.Google Scholar
  47. Longino, H. (1994). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Longino, H. (1995). Gender, politics and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Longino, H. E. (2008). Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice, science and values revisited (pp. 68–86). Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.Google Scholar
  51. Longino, H. E. (2013a). Studying human behavior: How scientists investigate aggression and sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Longino, H. (2013b). Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 101–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.Google Scholar
  54. Longino, H. (2010). Feminist epistemology at Hypatia’s 25th anniversary 1. Hypatia, 25(4), 733–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. MacGregor, S. (2009). A stranger silence still: The need for feminist social research on climate change. The Sociological Review, 57(s2), 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McMichael, P. (2009). Contemporary contradictions of the global development project: Geopolitics, global ecology and the ‘development climate’. Third World Quarterly, 30(1), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrow, D. R., Kopp, R. E., & Oppenheimer, M. (2009). Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 045106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Müller, B., et al. (2009). Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Climate Policy, 9(6), 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nath, P. K., & Behera, B. (2011). A critical review of impact of and adaptation to climate change in developed and developing economies. Environment, development and sustainability, 13(1), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. NCAR/UCAR. (2017). New approach to geoengineering simulations is significant step forward. NCAR/UCAR AtmosNews. Available at: https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/129835/new-approach-geoengineering-simulations-significant-step-forward. Accessed 6 May 2018.
  61. Nelson, V., Meadows, K., Cannon, T., Morton, J., & Martin, A. (2002). Uncertain predictions, invisible impacts, and the need to mainstream gender in climate change adaptations. Gender & Development, 10(2), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Neumayer, E. (2000). In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological economics, 33(2), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nhanenge, J. (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  64. Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., & Kristjánsson, J. E. (2013). Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(21), 11905–11917.Google Scholar
  65. NSSO. (2011). National accounts statistics. Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. http://www.mospi.gov.in/publication/national-accounts-statistics-2011. Accessed 1 Dec 2016.
  66. Rasch, P. J, Tilmes, S, Turco, R. P, Robock, A Oman, L, Chen, C, Stenchikov, G. L, & Garcia, R. R. (2008, November). An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Philosophical Transactions. Series A Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1882), 4007–4037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Resurrección, B. P. (2013). Persistent women and environment linkages in climate change and sustainable development agendas. Women’s Studies International Forum, 40, 33–43 Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ricke, K. L., et al. (2012). Effectiveness of stratospheric solar-radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change, 2, 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roberts, J. T., & Parks, B. (2006). A climate of injustice: Global inequality, North-South politics, and climate policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  70. Robinson, J. (2011). Cities in a world of cities: The comparative gesture. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Robock, A., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2008). Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 113, D1601–D16101.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Roy, A. (2009). The 21st-century metropolis: New geographies of theory. Regional Studies, 43(6), 819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Satterthwaite, D. (2008). Cities’ contribution to global warming: Notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment & Urbanization, 20(2), 539–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Saurin, J. (1996). International relations, social ecology and the globalisation of environmental change. In J. Volger & M. F. Imber (Eds.), The environment and international relations, global environmental change series. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Scheffran, J., et al. (2016). Climate engineering: Potential pathways, consequences and risks. Hamburg: Research Group Climate Change and Security (CLISEC), KlimaCampus, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  76. Schwartz, R. D. (2005). Global dimming: Clear-sky atmospheric transmission from astronomical extinction measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 110, D14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sedjo, R. A. (2010). Adaptation of forests to climate change. Resources for the Future, DP, 10-06.Google Scholar
  78. Sheppard, E., et al. (2013). Urban pulse – Provincializing global urban- ism: A manifesto. Urban Geography, 34(7), 893–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spanier, B. (1995). Im/partial science: Gender ideology in molecular biology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Steinfeld, H., et al. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow. FAO: Rome.Google Scholar
  81. Strickland, S. (2012). Feminism, postmodernism and difference. In K. Lennon & M. Whitford (Eds.), Knowing the difference: Feminist perspectives in epistemology (pp. 265–274). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Trenberth, K. E., & Dai, A. (2007). Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, 15. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030524/full. Accessed 1 Nov 2016.
  83. Victor, D. G, et al. (2009, March–April). The geoengineering option: A last resort against global warming? Geoengineering. Council on Foreign Affairs. Accessed 19 Nov 2016.Google Scholar
  84. Wallerstein, I. (1992). The concept of national development, 1917–1989: Elegy and requiem. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 517–529.Google Scholar
  85. Warrick, R. A., & Ahmad, Q. K. (2012). The implications of climate and sea-level change for Bangladesh. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  86. Wyckoff, A. W., & Roop, J. M. (1994). The embodiment of carbon in imports of manufactured products: Implications for international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy, 22(3), 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Sikka
    • 1
  1. 1.Media and Cultural StudiesNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations