4.6.4 Blind spots, risks and unintended consequences

Climate policymakers and other influential actors tend to focus on the more technological, less politically risky or contentious aspects of climate governance (Patterson et al., 2018). Justice and ethical implications of policies and other actions also tend to be ignored, leading to blind spots in who loses and in the assumptions made when labelling change as ‘positive’.

Whether in their eagerness to accelerate technological fixes, or a desire to maintain unanimity, momentum and political will, negotiators have sometimes been tempted to ignore or dismiss normative dimensions of climate policy and the possibility of unintended social consequences (Klinsky et al., 2017). However, all actors in the process – from scientists to world leaders – need to be careful to avoid today’s solutions becoming tomorrow’s harms. This is especially true when considering interventions designed to trigger exponential rates of positive social change or quick ‘techno-fixes’ (Sovacool, 2021). Solar radiation management is one such intervention that has already clearly been stated as not a feasible or just option for PTPs in this report, but there are other techno-fixes that could result in an equally exponential increase in unintended negative consequences. It is thus imperative that all actors take responsibility to include a justice framing, acknowledging potential risks, when referencing positive social tipping points as solutions to the ongoing climate and other social-ecological crises.

Some ‘positive’ interventions for climate impact mitigation and adaptation can also have unintended consequences and pose ethical challenges. In particular, they require careful consideration about what is ‘positive’ and about any attempt to intervene in systems that can never be fully understood.