The Emergence of Geoengineering: How Knowledge Networks Form Governance Objects

Ina Möller

doi:10.1017/9781009049696

Series: Elements in Earth System Governance

The Emergence of Geoengineering

How Knowledge Networks Form Governance Objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 January 2023

Ina Möller

Show author details

Ina Möller: Affiliation:
Wageningen Universiteit, The Netherlands

Summary

For many years, suggestions to 'geoengineer' the climate occupied a marginal role in climate change science and politics. Today, visions of massive carbon drawdown and sunlight reflection have become reasonable additions to conventional mitigation and adaptation. Why did researchers start engaging with ideas that were, for a long time, considered highly controversial? And how did some of these ideas come to be perceived worthy of research funding and in need of international governance? This Element provides an analysis of the recent history and evolution of geoengineering as a governance object. It explains how geoengineering evolved from a thought shared by a small network into a governance object that is likely to shape the future of climate politics. In the process, it generates a theory on the earliest phase of the policy cycle and sheds light on the question why we govern the things we govern in the first place.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

geoengineering climate change governance history epistemic community

Information

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in Earth System Governance

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009049696 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009049696

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 09 February 2023

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.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akenji, L, Lettenmeier, M., Toivio, V., Koide, R., and Amellina, A. (2019) 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and Options for Reducing Lifestyle Carbon Footprints. Technical Report. Hayama, Japan.Google Scholar

Allan, B. B. (2017) ‘Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects’, International Organization, 71(1), pp. 131–62.Google Scholar

Anderson, K. and Peters, G. (2016) ‘The Trouble with Negative Emissions’, Science, 354(6309), pp. 182–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567.Google Scholar

Anshelm, J. and Hansson, A. (2014a) ‘Battling Promethean Dreams and Trojan Horses: Revealing the Critical Discourses of Geoengineering’, Energy Research & Social Science, 2(2014), pp. 135–44.Google Scholar

Anshelm, J. and Hansson, A. (2014b) ‘The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate’, Environmental Humanities, 5(2014), pp. 101–23.Google Scholar

Antoniades, A. (2003) ‘Epistemic Communities, Epistemes and the Construction of (World) Politics’, Global Society, 17(1), pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953732032000053980.Google Scholar

Arrhenius, S. (1908) Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar

Asayama, S. et al. (2019) ‘Beyond Solutionist Science for the Anthropocene: To Navigate the Contentious Atmosphere of Solar Geoengineering’, The Anthropocene Review, 6(2), pp. 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619843678.Google Scholar

Baskin, J. (2019) Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature, Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_1.Google Scholar

Beck, S. et al. (2014) ‘Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise the Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES’, GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(2), pp. 80–7. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.2.4.Google Scholar

Beck, S. and Mahony, M. (2017) ‘The IPCC and the Politics of Anticipation’, Nature Publishing Group, 7(5), pp. 311–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3264.Google Scholar

Belter, C. W. and Seidel, D. J. (2013) ‘A Bibliometric Analysis of Climate Engineering Research’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), pp. 417–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.229.Google Scholar

Benjamin, L. and Thomas, A. (2016) ‘1.5 To Stay Alive? AOSIS and the Long Term Temperature Goal in the Paris Agreement’, SSRN Working Paper, 3392503, 122–9.Google Scholar

Bennett, A. and George, A. (1997) Process Tracing in Case Study Research. Washington, DC: McArthur Program on Case Studies.Google Scholar

Biermann, F. and Möller, I. (2019) ‘Rich Man’s Solution? Climate Engineering Discourses and the Marginalization of the Global South’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(2), pp. 151–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09431-0.Google Scholar

Biermann, F. et al. (2022) ‘Solar Geoengineering: The Case for an International Non-Use Agreement’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, e754, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.754.Google Scholar

Black, R. et al. (2021) Taking Stock: A Global Assessment of Net Zero Targets. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2050_en (Accessed 28 April 2021).Google Scholar

Boettcher, M. (2020) ‘Cracking the Code: How Discursive Structures Shape Climate Engineering Research Governance’, Environmental Politics, 29(5), pp. 890–916. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1670987.Google Scholar

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., and Labianca, G. (2009) ‘Network Analysis in the Social Sciences’, Science, 323(5916), pp. 892–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821 Google Scholar

Boyd, E., Corbera, E. and Estrada, M. (2008) ‘UNFCCC Negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): What the Process Says about the Politics of CDM-sinks’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(2), pp. 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9070-x.Google Scholar

Buck, H. J. (2016) ‘Rapid Scale-up of Negative Emissions Technologies: Social Barriers and Social Implications’, Climatic Change, 139, pp. 155–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6.Google Scholar

Buck, H. J. (2019) After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair and Restoration. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Buck, H. J., Gammon, A. R. and Preston, J. (2014) ‘Gender and Geoengineering’, Hypatia, 29(3), pp. 621–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12083.Google Scholar

Bundesregierung (2012) ‘Antwort der Bundesregierung auf die Kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten René Röspel, Dr. Ernst Dieter Rossmann, Oliver Kaczmarek, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion der SPD – Drucksache 17/9943 – Geoengineering/Climate-Engineering’.Google Scholar

Burns, W. C. G. and Nicholson, S. (2015) ‘Introduction to the Special Issue: Climate Engineering Law’, Climate Law, 5(2–4), pp. 105–10. https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00504001.Google Scholar

Burt, R. S. (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carton, W. (2019) ‘“Fixing” Climate Change by Mortgaging the Future: Negative Emissions, Spatiotemporal Fixes, and the Political Economy of Delay’, Antipode, 51(3), pp. 750–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ANTI.12532.Google Scholar

Carton, W. (2021) ‘Carbon Unicorns and Fossil Futures’, in Sapinski, J. P., Buck, H. J., and Malm, A. (eds.), Has it come to this? The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink. New Brunswick, Canada: Rutgers University Press, pp. 34–49.Google Scholar

Carton, W., Lund, J. F. and Dooley, K. (2021) ‘Undoing Equivalence: Rethinking Carbon Accounting for Just Carbon Removal’, Frontiers in Climate, 3(664130), pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/FCLIM.2021.664130.Google Scholar

Carton, W. et al. (2020) ‘Negative Emissions and the Long History of Carbon Removal’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(e671), pp. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.671.Google Scholar

Climate Change Committee (2019) Net Zero – Technical Report. www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-technical-report/ (Accessed 5 February 2021).Google Scholar

Cohen-Sacham, E. et al. (2016) Nature-based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges. Gland, Switzerland. https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval:BIB_93FD38C8836B.P001/REF (Accessed: 8 June 2021).Google Scholar

Cointe, B., Cassen, C. and Nadaï, A. (2019) ‘Organising Policy-Relevant Knowledge for Climate Action: Integrated Assessment Modelling, the IPCC, and the Emergence of a Collective Expertise on Socioeconomic Emission Scenarios’, Science and Technology Studies, 32(4), pp. 36–57. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.65031.Google Scholar

Collier, D. (2011) ‘Understanding Process Tracing’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), pp. 823–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429.Google Scholar

Corbera, E. et al. (2016) ‘Patterns of Authorship in the IPCC Working Group III Report’, Nature Climate Change, 6(1), pp. 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782.Google Scholar

Corry, O. (2013) Constructing a Global Polity: Theory, Discourse and Governance. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313652.Google Scholar

Cressey, D. (2012) Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row, Nature News. www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.10645.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2022).Google Scholar

Cross, M. K. D. (2013) ‘Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later’, Review of International Studies, 39(1), pp. 137–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210512000034.Google Scholar

Crutzen, P. J. (2006) ‘Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?’, Climatic Change, 77(3–4), pp. 211–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.Google Scholar

Darby, M. (2019) Net Zero: The Story of the Target that will Shape our Future, Climate Home News. www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/16/net-zero-story-target-will-shape-future/ (Accessed 3 August 2022).Google Scholar

de Coninck, H. et al. (2018) ‘Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response’, in Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. (eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pp. 313–443.Google Scholar

Dooley, K. and Gupta, A. (2017) ‘Governing by Expertise: The Contested Politics of (Accounting for) Land-Based Mitigation in a New Climate Agreement’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(4), pp. 483–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10784-016-9331-Z/TABLES/1.Google Scholar

Dowie, M. (2010) Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Doyle, A. (2020) Planned Harvard balloon test in Sweden stirs solar geoengineering unease | Reuters, Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-geoengineering-trfn-idUSKBN28S232 (Accessed 10 June 2021).Google Scholar

Earth Negotiations Bulletin (2019) Summary of the Fourth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly: 11–15 March 2019. https://enb.iisd.org/events/4th-meeting-oecpr-and-4th-session-unea/summary-report-11-15-march-2019 (Accessed: 8 June 2021).Google Scholar

Edenhofer, O. et al. (2012) IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering Meeting Report. www.ipcc.ch/ (Accessed 1 June 2021).Google Scholar

Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262518635/a-vast-machine/Google Scholar

ETC Group (2010) Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering. www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf www.etcgroup.org (Accessed 3 June 2021).Google Scholar

Exxon research and engineering company (1982) CO2 Greenhouse Gas Effect: A Technical Review, Climate Files. www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ (Accessed 23 August 2022).Google Scholar

Falkner, R. and Buzan, B. (2019) ‘The Emergence of Environmental Stewardship as a Primary Institution of Global International Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), pp. 131–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117741948.Google Scholar

Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52(4), pp. 887–917. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550789.Google Scholar

Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C. K. (1994) ‘Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks’, Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 1101–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1539-6924.1994.TB00082.X.Google Scholar

Fountain, H. and Flavelle, C. (2021) ‘Test Flight for Sunlight-Blocking Research Is Canceled – The New York Times’, New York Times, 2 April. www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/climate/solar-geoengineering-block-sunlight.html (Accessed 10 June 2021).Google Scholar

Freeman, L. C. (1979) ‘Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification’, Social Networks, 1(3), pp. 215–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.Google Scholar

Friedkin, N. (2004) ‘Social Cohesion’, Annual Review of Sociology, 30(2004), pp. 409–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625.Google Scholar

Fuentes-George, K. (2017) ‘Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization’, Global Environmental Politics, 17(2), pp. 125–43. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP.Google Scholar

Fuss, S. et al. (2020) ‘Moving toward Net-Zero Emissions Requires New Alliances for Carbon Dioxide Removal’, One Earth, 3(2), pp. 145–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEEAR.2020.08.002.Google Scholar

Galaz, V. (2021, March 9) ’Naivt att tillåta klimatmanipulation’. Svenska Dagbladet. www.svd.se/a/zg6ko5/naivt-att-tillata-klimatmanipulation (Accessed 14 November.2022).Google Scholar

Gannon, K. E. and Hulme, M. (2018) ‘Geoengineering at the “Edge of the World”: Exploring Perceptions of Ocean Fertilisation through the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation’, Geo: Geography and Environment, 5(1), pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/GEO2.54.Google Scholar

Geoengineering Monitor (2021) SCoPEx in Sweden: First Step Down the Slippery Slope of Risky Solar Geoengineering Experiments – Geoengineering Monitor. www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2020/12/scopex-in-sweden-first-step-down-the-slippery-slope-of-risky-solar-geoengineering-experiments/ (Accessed 10 June 2021).Google Scholar

George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.Google Scholar

Ginzky, H. and Frost, R. (2014) ‘Marine Geo-Engineering: Legally Binding Regulation under the London Protocol’, Carbon & Climate Law Review, 8(2), pp. 82–96.Google Scholar

Goodell, J. (2010) A Hard Look at the Perils and Potential of Geoengineering, Yale Environment. https://e360.yale.edu/features/a_hard_look_at_the_perils_and_potential_of_geoengineering (Accessed 23 August 2022).Google Scholar

Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K. (2000) ‘Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-induced Climate Change’, Geophysical Research Letters, 27(14), pp. 2141–4. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL006086.Google Scholar

Granovetter, M. S. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, Am J Sociol American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360–80. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469.Google Scholar

Muttitt, G., Kronick, C., and Rouse, L. (2021) Net Expectations: Assessing the Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal in Companies’ Climate Plans. London: Greenpeace.Google Scholar

GRIDA (2006) Agriculture Land Use Distribution –Croplands and Pastures, Global Environmental Outlook 4 (GEO-4). Cartographer: This. www.grida.no/resources/5531 (Accessed 14 November 2022).Google Scholar

Guest, G., Namey, E. E., and Mitchell, M. L. (2013) ‘Participant Observation’, in Guest, G., Namey, E. E., & Mitchell, M. L. (eds.), Collecting Qualitative Data: A Field Manual for Applied Research (pp. 75–112). London: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506374680.N3 Google Scholar

Gupta, A. and Möller, I. (2019) ‘De Facto Governance: How Authoritative Assessments Construct Climate Engineering as an Object of Governance’, Environmental Politics, 28(3), pp. 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1452373.Google Scholar

Gutiérrez, M. et al. (2014) Summary of the Twelfth Session of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Thirty-Ninth Session of the IPCC: 7–12 April 2014. www.iisd.ca/climate/ipcc39/ (Accessed 20 May 2021).Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. (1992a) ‘Banning Chlorofluorocarbons: Epistemic Community Efforts to Protect Stratospheric Ozone’, International Organization, 46(1), pp. 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002081830000148X.Google Scholar

Haas, P. M. (1992b) ‘Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination, 46(1), pp. 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442.Google Scholar

Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (2005) ‘Performing Governance through Networks’, European Political Science, 4(3), pp. 340–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210034.Google Scholar

Hausfather, Z. and Peters, G. P. (2020) ‘Emissions – The “Business as Usual” Story is Misleading’, Nature, 577(7792), pp. 618–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3.Google Scholar

Havstad, J. C. and Brown, M. J. (2017) ‘Neutrality, Relevance, Prescription, and the IPCC’, Public Affairs Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 303–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/44732800.Google Scholar

Ho-Lem, C., Zerriffi, H. and Kandlikar, M. (2011) ‘Who Participates in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Why: A Quantitative Assessment of the National Representation of Authors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, Global Environmental Change, 21(4), pp. 1308–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.007.Google Scholar

Horton, J. B. and Keith, D. (2016) ‘Solar Geoengineering and Obligations to the Global Poor’, in Preston, C. (ed.), Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocenein the Atmospheric. London: Rowman & Littlefield International, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar

House of Commons (2009) Engineering: turning ideas into reality – Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/50/50i.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2021).Google Scholar

House of Commons (2010) The Regulation of Geoengineering. Science and Technology Committee, Session 2009–10, 10. March. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf (Accessed 14 November 2022).Google Scholar

Hulme, M. (2014) Can Science Fix Climate Change? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Ingold, K. and Pflieger, G. (2016) ‘Two Levels, Two Strategies: Explaining the Gap Between Swiss National and International Responses Toward Climate Change’, European Policy Analysis, 2(1), pp. 20–38. https://doi.org/10.18278/EPA.2.1.4.Google Scholar

IPCC (1990) Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Edited by Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., and Ephraums, J. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Edited by Nakicenovic, N. and Swart, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2013a) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Stocker, T. F. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2013b) ‘WG1 Summary for Policymakers’, in Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., M. et al. (ed.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1–29.Google Scholar

IPCC (2014a) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by Edenhofer, O. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

IPCC (2014b) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar

IPCC (2018) ‘Summary for Policymakers’, in Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., D. et al. (eds.), Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Jamieson, D. (1996) ‘Ethics and Intentional Climate Change’, Climatic Change, 33(3), pp. 323–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142580.Google Scholar

Jones, N. (2018) ‘Safeguarding Against Environmental Injustice: 1.5°C Scenarios, Negative Emissions, and Unintended Consequences’, Carbon & Climate Law Review, 12(1), pp. 23–30. https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2018/1/6.Google Scholar

Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. (1999) ‘Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics’, International Social Science Journal, 51(159), pp. 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00179.Google Scholar

Keith, D. W. (2000) ‘Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect’, Annual Review of Energy and Environment, 25, pp. 245–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245.Google Scholar

Keith, D. W. and Dowlatabadi, H. (1992) ‘A Serious Look at Geoengineering’, Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 73(27), pp. 289 and 292–3. https://doi.org/10.1029/91EO00231.Google Scholar

Kessler, J. (2019) Novel Non-State Sources of De Facto Governance in the Solar Geoengineering Governance Landscape: The Case of SRMGI and C2G. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research.Google Scholar

Keutsch, F. (2020) Letter from Frank Keutsch to SCoPEx Advisory Committee, SCoPEx. https://scopexac.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Response-to-Sweden-Memo-9-Dec-2020.pdf (Accessed 10 June 2021).Google Scholar

Kintisch, E. (2010) Hack the Planet. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Köberle, A. C. (2019) ‘The Value of BECCS in IAMs: a Review’, Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 6(4), pp. 107–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-019-00142-3.Google Scholar

Kraxner, F., Nilsson, S. and Obersteiner, M. (2003) ‘Negative Emissions from BioEnergy Use, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECS) – The Case of Biomass Production by Sustainable Forest Management from Semi-Natural Temperate Forests’, Biomass and Bioenergy, 24, pp. 285–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00172-1.Google Scholar

Kreuter, J. (2021) Climate Engineering as an Instance of Politicization: Talking Tomorrow’s Technology – Framing Political Choice? Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar

Lake, D. A. and Wong, W. H. (2009) ‘The Politics of Networks: Interests, Power, and Human Rights Norms’, in Kahler, M. (ed.), Networked Politics: Agency, Power, and Governance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 127–50.Google Scholar

Lawrence, M. G. and Crutzen, P. J. (2017) ‘Was Breaking the Taboo on Research on Climate Engineering Via Albedo Modification a Moral Hazard, or a Moral Imperative?’ Earth’s Future, 5, pp. 136–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/eft2.172.Google Scholar

Lenton, T. M. et al. (2008) ‘Tipping Elements in the Earth’s Climate System’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(6), pp. 1786–93. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105.Google Scholar

Livingston, J. E., Lövbrand, E. and Alkan Olsson, J. (2018) ‘From Climates Multiple to Climate Singular: Maintaining Policy-Relevance in the IPCC Synthesis Report’, Environmental Science & Policy, 90, pp. 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2018.10.003.Google Scholar

Livingston, J. E. and Rummukainen, M. (2020) ‘Taking Science by Surprise: The Knowledge Politics of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees’, Environmental Science and Policy, 112, pp. 10–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.05.020.Google Scholar

Lövbrand, E. (2011) ‘Science and Public Policy Co-producing European Climate Science and Policy: A Cautionary Note on the Making of Useful Knowledge’, Science and Public Policy, 38(3), pp. 225–36. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12924093660516.Google Scholar

Lövbrand, E. et al. (2015) ‘Who Speaks for the Future of Earth? How Critical Social Science can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene’, Global Environmental Change, 32, pp. 211–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.Google Scholar

Low, S. and Schäfer, S. (2019) ‘Tools of the Trade: Practices and Politics of Researching the Future in Climate Engineering’, Sustainability Science, 14(4), pp. 953–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00692-x.Google Scholar

MacCracken, M. C. (1991) ‘Geoengineering the Climate’, in Workshop on the Engineering Response to Global Climate Change for Chapter 8: Control of Greenhouse Gas Sinks and of Climate. Palm Coast, FL: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Marchetti, C. (1977) ‘On Geoengineering and the CO2 Problem’, Climatic Change, 1(1), pp. 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162777.Google Scholar

Markusson, N., McLaren, D. and Tyfield, D. (2018) ‘Towards a Cultural Political Economy of Mitigation Deterrence by Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs)’, Global Sustainability, 1(e10), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/SUS.2018.10.Google Scholar

Martin, J. H. (1990) ‘Glacial-Interglacial CO2 Change: The Iron Hypothesis’, Paleoceanography, 5(1), pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/PA005i001p00001.Google Scholar

Matsuo, N. (2003) ‘CDM in the Kyoto Negotiations: How CDM has Worked as a Bridge between Developed and Developing Worlds?’ Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 8(3), pp. 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MITI.0000005638.74001.45.Google Scholar

Matthews, H. D. and Caldeira, K. (2008) ‘Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-Zero Emissions’, Geophysical Research Letters, 35(4), p. 4705. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032388.Google Scholar

McKibben, B. (2021, March 3) ‘Kulturdebatt. Det amerikanska experimentet med Kirunas himmel kan få katastrofala följder.’ Dagens Nyheter. https://www.dn.se/kultur/det-amerikanska-experimentet-med-kirunas-himmel-kan-fa-katastrofala-foljder/ (Accessed 14 November 2022).Google Scholar

McKinnon, C. (2019) ‘The Panglossian Politics of the Geoclique’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosphy, 23(5), pp. 584–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1694216.Google Scholar

McLaren, D. and Corry, O. (2021a) ‘Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance’, Global Policy, 12(S1), pp. 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12863.Google Scholar

McLaren, D. and Corry, O. (2021b) ‘The Politics and Governance of Research into Solar Geoengineering’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(3), p. e707. https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.707.Google Scholar

McLaren, D. and Markusson, N. (2020) ‘The Co-Evolution of Technological Promises, Modelling, Policies and Climate Change Targets’, Nature Climate Change, 10(5), pp. 392–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0740-1.Google Scholar

McLaren, D. et al. (2019) ‘Beyond “Net-Zero”: A Case for Separate Targets for Emissions Reduction and Negative Emissions’, Frontiers in Climate, 1(4), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00004.Google Scholar

McNutt, M. K. et al. (2015) Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Möller, I. (2020) ‘Political Perspectives on Geoengineering: Navigating Problem Definition and Institutional Fit’, Global Environmental Politics, 20(2), pp. 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00547.Google Scholar

National Academy of Sciences (1992) Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, Evans, D. J. (ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/1605.Google Scholar

National Academy of Sciences (2015) Report in Brief: Climate Intervention. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/18988/climate-intervention-brief-final.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2022).Google Scholar

Natural Environment Research Council (2009) Geoengineering Scoping Workshop. www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/pubs/geoengineering-scoping-workshop-outputs/ (Accessed 9 February 2022).Google Scholar

New Climate Institute (2022) Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022. https://newclimate.org/2022/02/07/corporate-climate-responsibility-monitor-2022/ (Accessed 9 February 2022).Google Scholar

Nielsen, L. W. (2014) ‘The “Nature” of “Nature”: The Concept of Nature and Its Complexity in a Western Cultural and Ethical Context’, Global Bioethics, 17(1), pp. 31–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2004.10800840.Google Scholar

Nierenberg, W. A. et al. (1983) Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Obersteiner, M. et al. (2001, December) Managing Climate Risk. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/6471/1/IR-01-051.pdf (Accessed 14 November 2022).Google Scholar

Oberthür, S. (2001) ‘Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols – Enhancing Synergies between Protecting the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate’, International Environmental Agreements, 1(3), pp. 357–77. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011535823228.Google Scholar

OceanNETs (2022) Ocean-based Negative Emissions Technologies. www.oceannets.eu/ (Accessed 3 August 2022).Google Scholar

Oldham, P. et al. (2014) ‘Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 372(20140065), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0065.Google Scholar

Oomen, J. (2021) Imagining Climate Engineering: Dreaming of the Designer Climate. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N. (2015) ‘How Earth Science Has Become a Social Science’, Historical Social Research, 40(2), pp. 246–70. https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.40.2015.2.246-270.Google Scholar

Parker, C. F., Karlsson, C. and Hjerpe, M. (2017) ‘Assessing the European Union’s global climate change leadership: from Copenhagen to the Paris Agreement’, Journal of European Integration, 39(2), pp. 239–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1275608.Google Scholar

Parson, E. A. (2014) ‘Climate Engineering in Global Climate Governance: Implications for Participation and Linkage’, Transnational Environmental Law, 3(01), pp. 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2047102513000496.Google Scholar

Petersen, A. (2014) ‘The Emergence of the Geoengineering Debate Within the IPCC’, Geoengineeering our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series. http://wp.me/p2zsRk-bp.Google Scholar

Pielke, R. J. et al. (2007) ‘Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation’, Nature, 445(February 2007), pp. 597–98.Google Scholar

Porter, K. E. and Hulme, M. (2013) ‘The Emergence of the Geoengineering Debate in the UK Print Media: A Frame Analysis’, The Geographical Journal, 179(4), pp. 342–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12003.Google Scholar

President’s Science Advisory Committee (1965) Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Price, D. J. de S. (1983) Little Science, Big Science … and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Rayner, S. et al. (2013) ‘The Oxford Principles’, Climatic Change, 121(3), pp. 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rogelj, J. et al. (2015) ‘Zero Emission Targets as Long-Term Global Goals for Climate Protection’, Environmental Research Letters, 10(105007), pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/10/105007.Google Scholar

Council, Saami (2021) Regarding SCoPEx Plans for Test Flights at the Swedish Space Corporation in Kiruna, Open Letter. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5dfb35a66f00d54ab0729b75/t/603e2167a9c0b96ffb027c8d/1614684519754/Letter+to+Scopex+Advisory+Committee+24+February.pdf (Accessed 10 June 2021).Google Scholar

Sand, P. H. (2010) ‘The Precautionary Principle: A European Perspective’, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 6(3), pp. 445–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030091124563.Google Scholar

Schelling, T. C. (1996) ‘The Economic Diplomacy of Geoengineering’, Climatic Change, 33, pp. 303–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142578.Google Scholar

Schneider, S. H. (1996) ‘Geoengineering: Could – or Should –We do It?’, Climatic Change, 33, pp. 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142577.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schubert, J. (2021) Engineering the Climate: Science, Politics, and Visions of Control. Manchester, UK: Mattering Press.Google Scholar

Schubert, J. (2022) ‘Science-State Alliances and Climate Engineering: A “Longue Durée” Picture’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13(6), p. e801. https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.801.Google Scholar

Seifert, E. K. and Bräker, S. (2020) ‘Klimaschutz – im Fokus der internationalen Normung’, DIN Mitteilungen, (April), pp. 105–14.Google Scholar

Shepherd, J. et al. (2009) Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar

Stephens, J. C. and Surprise, K. (2020) ‘The Hidden Injustices of Advancing Solar Geoengineering Research’, Global Sustainability, 3(e2), pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.28.Google Scholar

Stone, D. (2002) ‘Introduction: Global Knowledge and Advocacy Networks’, Global Networks, 2(1), pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00023.Google Scholar

Sugiyama, M., Asayama, S. and Kosugi, T. (2020) ‘The North–South Divide on Public Perceptions of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering?: A Survey in Six Asia-Pacific Countries’, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1699137.Google Scholar

Sun, W. et al. (2020) ‘Global Monsoon Response to Tropical and Arctic Stratospheric Aerosol Injection’, Climate Dynamics, 55(7–8), pp. 2107–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05371-7.Google Scholar

UNFCCC (1992) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf (Accessed 9 March 2021).Google Scholar

U.S. House of Representatives (2010) Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination Report. Committee on Science and Technology, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, October. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdfs/Geongineeringreport.pdf (Accessed 14 November 2022)Google Scholar

van Beek, L. et al. (2020) ‘Anticipating Futures through Models: The Rise of Integrated Assessment Modelling in the Climate Science-Policy Interface since 1970’, Global Environmental Change, 65(102191), pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2020.102191.Google Scholar

Van Den Belt, H. and Gremmen, B. (2002) ‘Between Precautionary Principle and “Sound Science”: Distributing the Burdens of Proof’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), pp. 103–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013862024432.Google Scholar

Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. (2018) ‘Alternative Pathways to the 1.5 °C Target Reduce the Need for Negative Emission Technologies’, Nature Climate Change, 8(5), pp. 391–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8.Google Scholar

Victor, D. G. et al. (2009) ‘The Geoengineering Option – A Last Resort against Global Warming?’ Foreign Affairs, 88(2), pp. 64–76. www.jstor.org/stable/20699494.Google Scholar

Whyte, K. P. (2019) ‘Indigeneity in Geoengineering Discourses: Some Considerations’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21(3), pp. 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562529.Google Scholar

Witte, J. M., Reineke, W. H. and Benner, T. (2000) ‘Beyond Multilateralism: Global Public Policy Networks’, Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, 2, pp. 176–88.Google Scholar

Workman, M. et al. (2020) ‘Decision Making in Contexts of Deep Uncertainty – An Alternative Approach for Long-Term Climate Policy’, Environmental Science & Policy, 103, pp. 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.10.002.Google Scholar

Zalasiewicz, J. et al. (eds) (2019) The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit: A Guide to the Scientific Evidence and Current Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zuccala, A. (2006) ‘Modeling the Invisible College’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2), pp. 152–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.