- INFORMACIÓN FINANCIERA POR SEGMENTOS

Respondents from TearFund, Practical Action and ClientEarth were interviewed as to why they have not been involved in GE. The results of the interviews will be presented based on the questions asked.

The beginning of the interviews started with a question to explore their knowledge on GE. The respondent from TearFund claimed to have limited but reasonable knowledge on GE, meaning that he was generally aware of it but not an expert. The ClientEarth respondent stated that their group had followed the discussion in the early years but did not consider it as a significant focus, nor had the NGO become involved in the area in a serious way. Practical Action’s respondent stated that the organisation did not have direct experience in

GE, but from an individual perspective, he was generally aware of GE in the context of climate change. The reason why the respondent was aware of GE is that it is a topic within climate change and he considered it important to stay up to speed with the discussion surrounding it. This will be analysed under the variable of competition in chapter 7.

When it comes to their attitudes towards GE research, the respondents tend to hold similar views in that they do not oppose every form of research on it, meaning they support GE computer modeling research, but they still have general concerns about it. The respondent from ClientEarth indicated that, in terms of GE research, ‘it is the question of priority of resources that we have; if you have to choose between research on different subjects including GE, then it depends on the possible costs, risks and disadvantages of solutions’. ClientEarth had a concern about GE research from a resource perspective, which will be analysed in detail within the resources variable in chapter 7. In addition, the respondent continued to explain that it is proper to consider solutions to global warming that would not necessarily have negative impacts. This concern can be illustrated within the variable of threat that people usually have a fear of negative changes in daily life, which will also be discussed in chapter 7. As for Practical Action, the respondent again placed great emphasis on the concern that GE will divert attention away from more critical issues, such as mitigation. This point can again be illustrated as NGOs strategically using their mediating role to stop the public from focusing on GE. The respondent from TearFund had concerns about SRM in particular because of its unpredictable side effects.

The respondent from Practical Action emphasised that GE, as an attempt to modify a large-scale planetary system, will divert the general population away from more pressing concerns such as mitigation. This point, which is identified in the data as a critical reason, will be illustrated within the variable of resources, urgency, and mediating in chapter 7. He then added that ‘reporting around GE might make it look like a good idea that we should invest our time and energy in and hence, the public would think that we do not have to worry about climate change’. This view will be analysed with the variable of ceasing to mediate in later discussion. Additionally, he expressed concern about the public as they might misunderstand what GE can really deliver and expect it to be a solution without fully understanding the complexity of GE techniques. This point will be analysed with public consciousness in the discussion.

The respondent from ClientEarth explained that there are several reasons why they are not involved in GE. Firstly, they have great concerns surrounding how GE techniques are used and their knock-on impacts. Secondly, they are concerned that GE might be an excuse not to focus on mitigation, which is similar to the concern expressed by Practical Action that GE will divert the attention away. Thirdly, the current main focus of the government remains mitigation, ‘there is not a promotion of GE by the government as a solution to climate change; when there is such a promotion, we might start to consider more about GE’, which suggests the government’s political preference. This will be analysed in detail in chapter 7. In addition, the respondent provided assumptions as to why other NGOs are also not involved in GE. These assumptions include the following. First, GE is not high on their agenda and it is not the major question which needs to concern us at the moment.

Most NGOs focus on mitigation and meeting the target on temperature in the Paris Agreement. Second, most NGOs focus on using technologies that we already have, which will be analysed with the efficiency variable in the discussion.

The respondent from TearFund respondent provided a range of answers. Firstly, NGOs have their own specific mandate and focuses and, therefore, GE sits outside of the remit of some groups. Although they are involved in climate change to help the poor who suffer from its side effects, they are not focusing on specific areas of climate change such as GE. This notion of remit will be analysed under the variable of goals in chapter 7. Secondly, the respondent mentioned that too much emphasis on GE could divert attention away from reducing emissions. Thirdly, as they have limited resources, they have to concentrate on the topics within their existing remit and scope. Finally, they prefer to focus on measures with less risk of dangerous impact on both the environment and human beings, such as mitigation.

There has been extensive debate surrounding the role of NGOs in GE. The respondent from TearFund stated that the role NGOs can play in the debate is to make the public aware of the potentially significant harmful impacts of GE and get these messages across in a digestible manner. However, the respondent from Practical Action pointed out that, as mentioned earlier, although NGOs could inform the public about the impacts of GE, the public had difficulty understanding the complexity of GE techniques. In addition, he argued that the debate amongst the public should not continue, as it is a distraction. However, he agreed with the need to continue the debate in the scientific and academic

communities.

In conclusion, the respondents from ClientEarth, TearFund and Practical Action have concerns surrounding GE as it can divert attention away from more pressing environmental matters. In addition, they emphasised the scarcity of resources, the remits of their organisations and the risks of GE techniques. These key points will be discussed in detail in chapter 7.

4.2.4 UK Conclusion

From the results presented above, there are several interesting opinions that are worth highlighting. First, although some NGOs are involved in GE and some are not, they typically hold similar views towards GE. Generally, they have great concerns about GE and hence, are opposed to it. This is an interesting point to help understand why they have made different choices on their engagement, which will be discussed in detail in chapter 7. Second, all of the respondents, regardless if they are involved in GE or not, have a reasonable knowledge about GE. Third, all respondents, including both involved and non-involved sectors, agreed that GE is a distraction from pressing concerns for the government. Fourth, respondents from both involved and non-involved NGOs placed great emphasis on resources, the Paris Agreement and the remits of their respective organisations. These interesting points will be addressed in chapter 7. The fact that all of the groups, including both those engaged with GE and those not, provided similar answers in various aspects suggests that further analysis should be conducted to examine whether

the responses appear to explain the engagement or non-engagement.