Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-01T17:19:50.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2013

Clare Heyward*
University of Oxford


Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

Symposium: Climate Change Justice
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013

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.)


Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N.E., and Lenton, T.M.. 2012. Appraising Geoengineering. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper Series. Available at Scholar
Blackstock, J., Battisti, D., Caldeira, K., Eardley, D., Katz, I., Keith, D.W., Patrinos, A.N.N, Schrag, D.P., Socolow, R.H., and Koonin, S.E.. 2009. Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies. Available at: Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., and Meyer, L.A., Change, published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D. 1996. “Ethics and Intentional Climate Change.” Climatic Change 33: 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J., Raddekmaker, S., Anderson, J.G., Benedick, R.E., Caldeira, K., Chaisson, J., Goldston, D., Hamburg, S., Keith, D., Lehman, R., Loy, F., Morgan, G., Sarewitz, D., Schelling, T., Shepherd, J., Victor, D., Whelan, D., and Winickoff, D.. 2011. Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center.Google Scholar
Marchetti, C. 1977. “On Geoengineering and the CO2 Problem.” Climatic Change 1: 5968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metz, B, Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R, and Meyer, L.A., eds. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group Ii to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming 1992. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation and the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Natural Environmental Research Council 2010. Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Available at Scholar
Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., and eds, C.E. Hanson. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ray, A. 2010. “Alternative Responses to Climate Change: An Inquiry into Geoengineering.” Stanford Journal of Public Policy 1: 3549.Google Scholar
Rickels, W., Klepper, G., Dovern, J., Betz, G., Brachatzek, N., Cacean, S., Gussow, K., Heintzenberg, J., Hiller, S., Hoose, C., Leisner, T., Oschlies, A., Platt, U., Proelß, A., Renn, O., Schafer, S., and Zurn, M. 2011. Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. 1996. “The Economic Diplomacy of Geoengineering.” Climatic Change 33: 303–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd, J., Cox, P., Haigh, J., Keith, D., Launder, B., Mace, G., MacKerron, G., Pyle, J., Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., and Watson, A. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. The Royal Society, London.Google Scholar
US Government Accountability Office 2010. Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts. Government Accountability Office 10-903, Washington DC.Google Scholar