C1 · GAUN Turkey
Geoengineering Ethics
Panel Debate
Role-Play
Gaziantep University · C1 Activity 3 · CLIL · TBL · SDG 13 · SDG 16 · SDG 17
🗣 Language
Hedging (might, could, potentially) · Evaluative expressions · Discourse markers (in addition, nevertheless, on the contrary) · Argumentative essay register
🌌 Content
Geoengineering methods · Carbon capture · Cloud seeding · Solar radiation management · Ethical dimensions · Climate justice
🤝 Skills
Academic reading · Advanced speaking · Note-taking · Formal writing · Ethical reasoning · Systems thinking · Critical evaluation
📊 Lead-in: Four Geoengineering Technologies (5 min)
Method: Visual inquiry · CLIL inputC1: Evaluate · Hedge · Ethical reasoning
Click each technology card to see a detailed pros/cons analysis. Then discuss: "Should we change the climate artificially?" Use hedging language: "This might reduce temperatures, but it could also..." / "It is questionable whether..."
💬 Discussion — C1 Evaluative & Hedging Structures
Hedging Language
This might reduce emissions, but...
Cloud seeding could potentially cause...
Solar radiation management may well...
It is conceivable that...
Cloud seeding could potentially cause...
Solar radiation management may well...
It is conceivable that...
Evaluative Expressions
It is questionable whether...
One might argue that...
There is considerable evidence that...
This appears to be a more viable approach...
One might argue that...
There is considerable evidence that...
This appears to be a more viable approach...
Discourse Markers
In addition to these concerns...
Nevertheless, the scientific consensus...
On the contrary, reducing emissions...
Furthermore, the ethical implications...
Nevertheless, the scientific consensus...
On the contrary, reducing emissions...
Furthermore, the ethical implications...
Ethical Framework
Who decides? Who pays? Who risks?
The precautionary principle suggests...
Global justice demands that...
Intergenerational responsibility requires...
The precautionary principle suggests...
Global justice demands that...
Intergenerational responsibility requires...
👨🏫 Teacher
Show a 2–3 minute video on geoengineering before opening this tab. After students have clicked all four cards and discussed, ask: "Which technology seems most promising? Which is most dangerous? What questions does this raise about who should make this decision?"
Show a 2–3 minute video on geoengineering before opening this tab. After students have clicked all four cards and discussed, ask: "Which technology seems most promising? Which is most dangerous? What questions does this raise about who should make this decision?"
🏭 Role Assignment & Argument Builder (10 min)
Method: Cooperative learning · Role-play preparationC1: Position statement · Hedging · Evaluative register
Click your assigned role to see your brief. Then build 3 position arguments using the argument builder below. Use hedging and evaluative language throughout. You will defend these in the Panel Discussion.
🔬
Scientist
You evaluate the technical feasibility and risks of geoengineering. You believe some technologies may be necessary, but only with rigorous testing, international governance, and full transparency about uncertainties.
🏛️
Government Official
You balance economic growth, international commitments, and national interest. You want solutions that are affordable, politically acceptable, and do not undermine sovereignty or development rights.
⚖️
NGO Representative
You represent communities most vulnerable to climate change AND to unintended consequences of geoengineering. You insist on climate justice, precaution, and the primacy of emissions reduction over technological fixes.
👥
Citizen / Youth Activist
You represent the generation that will live with the long-term consequences of both climate change and geoengineering decisions. You demand accountability, intergenerational justice, and democratic participation in the decision-making process.
🏭 Select a role above to see starter arguments — then add your own!
📝 Key Questions for Your Role
Select a role above to see targeted preparation questions.
🎭 Panel Discussion (15 min)
Method: Role-Play/Simulation (Crookall, 2010)C1: Formal debate register · Rebuttal · Advanced markers
Each role presents (2 min), then responds to challenges from other roles (1 min each). Use the discussion questions below and the round indicator to stay on track. Use the 2-min speaker timer for each contribution.
🎭 PANEL DISCUSSION ARENA
Select a discussion round · Start the speaker timer · Each role uses C1 evaluative and hedging language
2:00
SPEAKER TIMER
Select a round above to see the discussion question for that stage.
✍️ Language for the Panel — C1 Formal Register
Opening Your Statement
From a scientific perspective, it should be noted...
As a representative of civil society, I would contend...
The government's position is that, while we acknowledge...
As a young person who will live with these decisions...
As a representative of civil society, I would contend...
The government's position is that, while we acknowledge...
As a young person who will live with these decisions...
Challenging Other Roles
It is questionable whether your proposal adequately addresses...
On the contrary, the evidence suggests that...
While I appreciate this perspective, nevertheless...
In addition to these concerns, one must also consider...
On the contrary, the evidence suggests that...
While I appreciate this perspective, nevertheless...
In addition to these concerns, one must also consider...
Conceding Points
You raise a valid point; however, one must also consider...
While this might reduce emissions in the short term...
I acknowledge the concern, but the potential benefits...
That is a fair challenge; nevertheless...
While this might reduce emissions in the short term...
I acknowledge the concern, but the potential benefits...
That is a fair challenge; nevertheless...
Synthesis Register
On balance, the panel appears to agree that...
Despite our different perspectives, there is a consensus...
The key remaining disagreement concerns...
In conclusion, it might be prudent to...
Despite our different perspectives, there is a consensus...
The key remaining disagreement concerns...
In conclusion, it might be prudent to...
🏆 PEER VOTE — Most Convincing Panelist
Listen to all panelists — then vote!
⚡ Speed Debate — Pros vs. Cons (15 min)
Method: CLT · GamificationC1: Spontaneous argumentation · Hedging under pressure
Rotate partners every 2 minutes. The system assigns your stance — PRO or CON. You must argue that position for 1 minute, then your partner responds for 1 minute. Forces you to defend positions you may not hold — excellent C1 practice!
⚡ SPEED DEBATE TIMER
Click Assign Stance to get your position · Start the 1-minute timer · Rotate every 2 minutes!
1:00
Click "Assign Stance" to get your position!
💬 Speed Debate Topics
"Geoengineering could provide crucial time to decarbonise the global economy."
"Carbon capture is preferable to solar radiation management because it addresses the cause, not the symptom."
"No nation should be able to conduct geoengineering experiments without global consent."
"Relying on geoengineering reduces the urgency to eliminate fossil fuel use."
"The communities most at risk from geoengineering are not the same as those who would make the decisions."
🔬 Prediction Challenge — Geoengineering in 50 Years (10 min)
Method: Speculative language · Futures thinkingC1: Speculative conditionals · Hedged predictions
"If geoengineering becomes common, what might happen in 50 years?" Build predictions using the chip selector. Save your best prediction — the class votes for the most thought-provoking.
🔬 PREDICTION CHALLENGE — 50 YEARS FROM NOW
Select one chip per row · Build a C1-level speculative prediction · Share with the class!
① Condition (if...)
② What might happen...
③ Evaluative / ethical closing
Select options above to build your speculative prediction...
💡 Reflection & Homework (5 min + HW)
Method: Critical discussionC1: Ethical synthesis · Personal position
"Should we use technology to fix the climate, or should we focus only on reducing emissions?" Share and compare positions across roles. Click each card for a C1 model response with discourse markers.
🌌
"Is geoengineering a genuine solution or a distraction from real action?"
C1: "It is questionable whether geoengineering constitutes a genuine solution in any meaningful sense, given that it addresses the symptoms rather than the cause of climate change. On the contrary, one might argue that the very availability of a technological emergency option could reduce the political urgency to decarbonise. Nevertheless, there may be a case for limited, internationally governed research programmes, provided they do not substitute for ambitious emissions reductions."
⚖️
"Who should decide whether to deploy geoengineering? Who should NOT decide alone?"
C1: "In addition to the technical questions, geoengineering raises profound questions of global justice: decisions made by powerful nations could affect rainfall patterns, agricultural yields, and ecosystem stability in other countries without their consent. One might argue that any deployment should require explicit consensus through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, with particular attention to the voices of climate-vulnerable nations that would bear the greatest risk."
⚡
"What is the 'moral hazard' of geoengineering?"
C1: "The moral hazard argument holds that the existence of a technological backstop might reduce the incentive to pursue the more difficult but necessary work of eliminating fossil fuel use. While this might seem unduly pessimistic about human motivation, there is historical evidence to support the concern: carbon trading markets, for example, have been used to defer rather than accelerate decarbonisation. Furthermore, the promise of a future technical fix could be exploited politically to justify continued extraction."
📚
"What is your personal position? Would you vote for or against geoengineering?"
C1: "It is difficult to maintain a categorical position on a question where both the evidence and the ethical stakes are genuinely complex. Nevertheless, I would argue that a precautionary approach — one that permits carefully governed research while firmly subordinating any deployment decision to ambitious emissions reductions — is more defensible than either uncritical technological optimism or categorical rejection. On the contrary, to dismiss geoengineering entirely might be irresponsible in a world where 1.5 degrees Celsius may no longer be achievable through mitigation alone."
📝 Homework — 300-Word Argumentative Essay
📄 Task: “Geoengineering is too risky to be our climate solution.” — Agree or Disagree?
Write a 300-word argumentative essay. Your essay must:
· State a clear position in the opening paragraph
· Use at least three hedging structures (might, could, potentially, it is conceivable that)
· Use at least two evaluative expressions (it is questionable whether / one might argue)
· Use at least three discourse markers (in addition, nevertheless, on the contrary, furthermore)
· Acknowledge and respond to the strongest counterargument
· Close with a position that is nuanced, not simply for or against
· State a clear position in the opening paragraph
· Use at least three hedging structures (might, could, potentially, it is conceivable that)
· Use at least two evaluative expressions (it is questionable whether / one might argue)
· Use at least three discourse markers (in addition, nevertheless, on the contrary, furthermore)
· Acknowledge and respond to the strongest counterargument
· Close with a position that is nuanced, not simply for or against
🔎 Follow-Up Research: Research one current geoengineering project (e.g., the SCOPEX stratospheric aerosol experiment, the UK SPICE project, or direct air capture facilities in Iceland). Present your findings in the next class: What is the project? Who funds it? What are the ethical concerns? What governance framework applies?