Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-xnzsz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-21T22:45:02.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender and Geoengineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Holly Jean Buck ,
Andrea R. Gammon  and
Christopher J. Preston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Geoengineering has been broadly and helpfully defined as “the intentional manipulation of the earth's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change or its warming effects” (Corner and Pidgeon 2010, 26). Although there exists a rapidly growing literature on the ethics of geoengineering, very little has been written about its gender dimensions. The authors consider four contexts in which geoengineering appears to have important gender dimensions: (1) the demographics of those pushing the current agenda, (2) the overall vision of control it involves, (3) the design of the particular technologies, and (4) whom geoengineering will most affect and benefit. After detailing these four gender dimensions, we consider three ways in which the geoengineering discourse could be enriched if it became more sensitive to issues of gender. These include increasing the focus on the concrete other, recognizing the socially transformative potential of geoengineering technologies, and engaging in value‐sensitive design. Although ultimately remaining agnostic on the desirability of geoengineering, the paper brings gender considerations into a discussion from which they have been conspicuously absent.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 29 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Climate Change , Summer 2014 , pp. 651 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Andrea Gammon and Christopher Preston wish to acknowledge support for their work from the National Science Foundation (SES # 0958095).

References

Arora‐Jonsson, Seema. 2011. Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change. Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 744–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asia‐Pacific Women's Major Group Statement (APWMGS). 2011. Submission to Earth Summit 2012, Rio de Janeiro. http://earthsummit2012.org/news/697-womens-major-group-statement (accessed September 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Bala, G., Duffy, P., and Taylor, K. 2008. Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (22): 7664–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benhabib, Seyla. 1986. The generalized and the concrete other: The Kohlberg‐Gilligan controversy and feminist theory in feminism as critique. Praxis International 5 (4): 402–24.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1987. The flight to objectivity: Essays on Cartesianism and culture. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Buck, Holly Jean. 2012a. Climate remediation to address social development challenges: Going beyond cost‐benefit analysis. In Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management, ed. Preston, Christopher J.Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Buck, Holly Jean. 2012b. Geoengineering: Re‐making climate for profit or humanitarian intervention? Development and Change 43 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Buck, Holly Jean. 2013. Framing geoengineering in the media: Spectacle, tragedy, solution? In Interpretive approaches to global climate governance: De‐constructing the greenhouse, ed. Methmann, Chris, Rothe, Delf, and Stephan, Benjamin. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bunzl, Martin. 2008. An ethical assessment of geoengineering. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64 (2): 18.Google Scholar
Corner, Adam, and Pidgeon, Nick. 2010. Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environment 52 (1): 24–37.Google Scholar
Cuomo, Chris. 2011. Climate change, vulnerability, and responsibility. Hypatia 26 (4): 690–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crutzen, Paul. 2006. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77 (3–4): 211–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dankelman, Irene. 2002. Climate change: Learning from gender analysis and women's experiences of organising for sustainable development. Gender and Development 10 (2): 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dankelman, Irene. 2010. Gender and climate change: An introduction. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Denton, Fatma. 2002. Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why does gender matter? Gender and Development 10 (2): 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, Wendy. 2000. Dualisms, hierarchies and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science 30 (5): 759–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, Wendy. 2007. ‘Nuts and bolts and people’: Gender‐troubled engineering identities. Social Studies of Science 37 (3): 331–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaard, Greta, and Gruen, Lori. 1993. Ecofeminism: Toward global justice and planetary health. Society and Nature 2 (1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen. 2011a. A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, Stephen. 2011b. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the royal society report. Environmental Values 20 (2): 163–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Clive. 2011. The clique that is trying to frame the global geoengineering debate. The Guardian, December 5.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1998. Is science multi‐cultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political, global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, ed. Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J. and Hanson, C. E.Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2012. Meeting report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change expert meeting on geoengineering, ed. Edenhofer, O., Pichs‐Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Field, C., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Dahe, Q., Minx, J., Mach, K., Plattner, G.‐K., Schlömer, S., Hansen, G. and Mastrandrea, M.Potsdam: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Dale. 1996. Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change 33 (3): 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, W., and Schneider, S. 1974. Climate stabilization: For better or for worse? Science 186 (4170): 1163–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kintisch, E. 2010. Hack the planet: Science's best hope—or worst nightmare—for averting climate catastrophe. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley Publishing.Google Scholar
Laplace, Pierre Simon. 1951. A philosophical essay on probabilities. Trans. F. Truscott and F. Emory. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Launder, Brian, and Thompson, John eds. 2010. Geoengineering climate change: Environmental necessity or Pandora's box?. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lenton, Tim. 2011. 2°C or not 2°C? That is the climate question. Nature 473 (7) http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110504/full/473007a.html (accessed July 8, 2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masika, Rachel. 2002. Gender, development and climate change. London: Oxfam.Google Scholar
Matthews, H. D., and Caldeira, Ken. 2007. Transient climate carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (24): 9949–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Moreno‐Cruz, Juan, Ricke, Katharine, and Keith, David. 2011. A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Climatic Change 110 (3–4): 649–68.Google Scholar
Nisbet, M. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter. Environment 51 (2): 12–23.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Robert L. 2011. Geoengineering for decision makers. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf (accessed July 10, 2013).Google Scholar
Oxfam International. 2005. The tsunami's impact on women. Oxfam Briefing Notes. http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/bn050326-tsunami-women (accessed September 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Plumwood, Val. 1994. Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pongratz, Julia, D.B., Lobell, L., Cao, and K., Caldeira. 2012. Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nature Climate Change 2 (2): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Christopher. 2011. Re‐thinking the unthinkable: Environmental ethics and the presumptive argument against geoengineering. Environmental Values 20 (4): 457–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Christopher ed. 2012a. Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Preston, Christopher. 2012b. SRM and vulnerable populations: The moral deficit and its prospects. In Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management, ed. Preston, Christopher J.Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Ricke, Kate, Morgan, Granger, and Allen, Myles. 2010. Regional climate response to solar‐radiation management. Nature Geoscience 3 (8): 537–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robock, Alan. 2012. Will geoengineering with solar radiation management ever be used? Ethics, Policy, and Environment 15 (2): 202–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robock, Alan, Oman, Luke, and Stenchikov, Georgiy. 2008. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research 113. D16101, doi: 10.1029/2008JD010050 (accessed July 8, 2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance, uncertainty. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate (accessed September 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Sandler, Ronald. 2012. Value sensitive design and nanotechnology. In Debating science: Deliberation, values, and the common good, ed. Scott, Dane and Francis, Blake. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., Bou Karam, D., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Kristjánsson, J. E., Niemeier, U., Schulz, M., Aaheim, A., Benduhn, F., Lawrence, M., and Timmreck, C. 2012. Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: Climate responses simulated by four earth system models. Earth System Dynamics 3: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Dane. 2012. Insurance policy or technical fix: The ethical implications of framing solar radiation management. In Engineering the climate: The ethics of solar radiation management, ed. Preston, Christopher J.Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1992. The unavoidability of justice. In The international politics of the environment, ed. Hurrell, A. and Kingsbury, B.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1999. Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs 75 (3): 531–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI). 2011. Solar radiation management: The governance of research. http://www.srmgi.org/files/2012/01/DES2391_SRMGI-report_web_11112.pdf (accessed September 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Svoboda, T., Keller, K., Goes, M., and Tuana, N. 2011. Sulfate aerosol geoengineering: The question of justice. Public Affairs Quarterly 25 (3): 157–80.Google Scholar
Warren, Karen. 2000. Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weinberg, Alvin. 1967. Can technology replace social engineering? American Behavioral Scientist 10 (9): 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichterich, Christa. 2012. The future we want: A feminist perspective. http://www.boell.org/downloads/Wichterich_The_Future_we_Want.pdf (accessed September 21, 2012).Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2006. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy 23 (1): 102–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar