Next Article in Journal
Strategizing Smart, Sustainable, and Knowledge-Based Development of Cities: Insights from Florianópolis, Brazil
Next Article in Special Issue
Does Information about Personal Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Improve Individual Environmental Friendliness? A Survey Experiment
Previous Article in Journal
Martial Arts Tourism of the “Europe—Far East” Direction, in the Opinion of Grand Masters
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influencing Factors of Public Participation in Meteorological Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
Article

Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios

1
Research Unit Sustainability and Climate Policy, 04229 Leipzig, Germany
2
Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, 18051 Rostock, Germany
3
Interdisciplinary Faculty, Rostock University, 18051 Rostock, Germany
4
Faculty of Law, Rostock University, 18051 Rostock, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 8858; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858
Received: 16 June 2020 / Revised: 14 October 2020 / Accepted: 22 October 2020 / Published: 25 October 2020
: Most scenarios on instruments limiting global warming in line with the 1.5 °C temperature limit of the Paris Agreement rely on overshooting the emissions threshold, thus requiring the application of negative emission technologies later on. Subsequently, the debate on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) (frequently subsumed under “geoengineering”) has been reinforced. Yet, it does not determine normatively whether those are legally valid approaches to climate protection. After taking a closer look at the scope of climate scenarios and SRM methods compiling current research and opinions on SRM, this paper analyses the feasibility of geoengineering and of SRM in particular under international law. It will be shown that from the perspective of human rights, the Paris Agreement, and precautionary principle the phasing-out of fossil fuels and the reduction in consumption of livestock products as well as nature-based approaches such as sustainable—and thus climate and biodiversity-smart—forest, peatland, and agricultural management strongly prevail before geoengineering and atmospheric SRM measures in particular. However, as all of the atmospheric SRM methods are in their development phase, governance options to effectively frame further exploration of SRM technologies are proposed, maintaining that respective technologies thus far are not a viable means of climate protection. View Full-Text
Keywords: geoengineering; solar radiation management; IPCC; human rights; precautionary principle; Paris Agreement; scenarios; climate governance geoengineering; solar radiation management; IPCC; human rights; precautionary principle; Paris Agreement; scenarios; climate governance
MDPI and ACS Style

Wieding, J.; Stubenrauch, J.; Ekardt, F. Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858

AMA Style

Wieding J, Stubenrauch J, Ekardt F. Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):8858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wieding, Jutta, Jessica Stubenrauch, and Felix Ekardt. 2020. "Human Rights and Precautionary Principle: Limits to Geoengineering, SRM, and IPCC Scenarios" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8858. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218858

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop