Redefining risk and uncertainty: a call for changing public and political perceptions of technology

"Uncertainty - real or manufactured - is a well-rehearsed reason for inaction."

(The Guardian, 2014)

And this, as I have discovered, is the story of the discourse of technology and climate change. A state of inertia gripping a capitalist society built on impatience, inaction and reaction.

Through my research over the last few months I have found that many renewable technologies and some geoengineering techniques (e.g. solar and CCS) are entirely practical but have struggled beyond conception because they are in the grips of the hand of uncertainty. Uncertainty dictates whether they are lawful. Uncertainty dictates politics, economics and social perception. Worst of all, uncertainty is uncertain. And it is widely defined. New forms of hazard, risk and uncertainty are developing along with modernisation (Beck, 1992), so no wonder society can be resistant. Under such an outlook, why would governments want to invest precious money towards uncertain causes such as aerosol or space mirror development?

Regarding private development of these technologies, public perception is important. Renewables may be rapidly gaining public support worldwide (Devine-Wright, 2014) but this is not necessarily the case for geoengineering (Scheer and Renn, 2014). In the past, public perception has had the power to limit the potential of a number of technological developments, for example, wind energy expansion, and this may well be the case (or worse) for numerous geoengineering techniques if the private sector are left responsible for their development.

So I am calling for a change of public perception by redefining uncertainty. Scientists need to be cautious with their communication of uncertainty to ensure that the public are correctly informed. A positive spin is required, alongside an emphasis on personal responsibility and widespread participation. The public need convincing that this isn't just a matter to be managed by a higher power (Stilgoe, 2015). We need to embrace the precautionary principle, which states that not having all information to hand is no reason for inaction (Steele, 2006). Otherwise, it is unlikely that anything productive would occur. Apparently, it is applied in its rudimentary form in many international agreements, except when there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage (Principle 15 of Rio Declaration). Many geoengineering techniques therefore apply to this exception. Perhaps international law's definition of the precautionary principle needs redefining too.

Then again, can the public be trusted to lead change? Unfortunately, a paper by Patt and Weber (2013) shows that the public are still more likely to form their opinions on climate change from their political views, rather than from evidence and error bars presented by the scientific community. This goes some way to explaining resistance amongst some members of the public. Maybe public opinion needs to be bypassed, by offering them what they should want, as opposed to what they think they want. I refer to the innovative private companies, and a quote from Steve Jobs, who once said: "People don't know what they want until you show it to them". He was a big believer in bypassing market research altogether; a waste of time and money.

I live in a position of privilege, with reasonable wealth, with a vote, in a region of the world where the effects of climate change are less impactful. Therefore, it is easy for me to sit here and dictate that we all need to lighten up in order for radical technological developments to progress. For this reason, I am thankful for the position of the law to ensure that the likes of me and my radical train of thought are kept in check, and that privilege and rights are shared with those who live in less fortunate circumstances.

I have learned the following from researching this blog so far:

• I remain pro-technology, even more so than when I began. But so long as it is sustainable for environmental health. 
• At present renewable technologies are overall in a good place - economically and politically. Long may this continue. Newly elected governments taking their seats in 2017 would be stupid not to see their environmental and ultimately, economic potential. 
• I have a mixed outlook towards geoengineering techniques. Whilst I'm interested in the innovative ideas that have emerged (for example, solar mirrors), they fail to solve the root of a problem, instead they risk introducing new ones. This is not the case for all of them however: I am convinced that CCS is a viable option and must be made widespread. 
• Economics dictate how the world works. And I can't see that changing, however much I would like it to.