Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring, Modeling, Controlling the Climate? Numerical Expertise in U.S. Climate Engineering Politics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Science, Numbers and Politics

Abstract

This contribution explores the role of quantified scientific expertise for U.S. geoengineering politics. Drawing on empirical evidence from federal proceedings, it assesses how climate measures, models, targets, and thresholds have shaped the trajectory of geoengineering within U.S. climate policy between 1990 and 2015. The analysis distinguishes three stages, in which this “career” of geoengineering has been advanced, each pointing to distinct capacities of quantified expertise: from contesting the “discernible human influence” on the climate, to quantifying the size of this challenge, all the way to devising an “emergency tool”. Going beyond the specific case of geoengineering, this contribution thus illuminates how context dependent not only our understanding of societal problems is, but also our comprehension of the kinds of responses we deem legitimate. Specifically, it demonstrates how numbers “work” in communicating global challenges, and how they guide the choices we make in seeking to address them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hoffert in: United States of America (2006a, 94).

  2. 2.

    Royal Society (2009, 6); see also Keith (2000, 245) and Pachauri and Mayer (2015, 89).

  3. 3.

    Blackstock and Low in: Blackstock and Low (2018, 1).

  4. 4.

    See, e.g., Latham et al. (2012).

  5. 5.

    For an overview of the diverse SRM concepts, see, e.g., NRC (2015b).

  6. 6.

    For an overview of the diverse CDR concepts, see, e.g., NRC (2015a).

  7. 7.

    NRC (2015a, 5); see also 67f.

  8. 8.

    Ibid., 58.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Blackstock et al. (2009). For an overview of the various discursive frames of geoengineering, see particularly Kreuter (2015) and Luokkanen et al. (2014). For a critique of the “Plan B” framing in the context of geoengineering, see Fragniere and Gardiner (2016), Horton (2015), and Sillmann et al. (2015).

  10. 10.

    See, e.g., Baker (2017, 17), Fleming (2010, 169), and Edwards (2010).

  11. 11.

    See also, e.g., Hulme (2011, 249) and Taylor and Buttel (1992, 410). For a detailed account of this historical argument, see Schubert (2018).

  12. 12.

    This distinction of three stages builds on ongoing research on the U.S. political “career” of geoengineering by the author.

  13. 13.

    Baker (2017, 20). Ibid.

  14. 14.

    GPO (2018a).

  15. 15.

    The document matches were generated on the basis of automated searches (search string) within FDsys.

  16. 16.

    For a detailed account of the availability of all FDsys collections, see GPO (2018b). My analysis produced only one additional document match (from 1990), which predates the timeframe displayed here.

  17. 17.

    Pielke (2000a, 20).

  18. 18.

    Keller (2009, 219).

  19. 19.

    Pielke (2000a, 21).

  20. 20.

    Ibid., 23.

  21. 21.

    Pielke (2000b, 136).

  22. 22.

    Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate (1997, 3, 13, 15, 24, 26 etc.).

  23. 23.

    Ibid., 122f.

  24. 24.

    See particularly a report by the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) (1965).

  25. 25.

    Schneider (1996, 295).

  26. 26.

    Keith (2000, 248).

  27. 27.

    IPCC, UNEP, and Titus (1990, 108).

  28. 28.

    Schneider in: Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate (1997, 131).

  29. 29.

    National Science Foundation (2000, 21796).

  30. 30.

    Socolow in: United States of America (2006b, 149).

  31. 31.

    Fincham (2014).

  32. 32.

    Barrett in: United States of America (2007d, 111).

  33. 33.

    Fleming (2010, 253).

  34. 34.

    Keller (2009, 109).

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    See Fig. 3.1. in Stilgoe (2015, 186). See also Kintisch (2010, 12).

  37. 37.

    Crutzen (2006). See, e.g., Keith (2013, 92) and Morton (2016, 152f), or Stilgoe (2015, 133ff) for a critical perspective on this publication’s importance.

  38. 38.

    Keith (2013, 92).

  39. 39.

    United States of America (2006a, 46).

  40. 40.

    A common theme in this context is the contestation of the Bush administration’s climate change technology priorities, especially the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) (United States of America 2003, 2006a, b), and the DOE’s carbon sequestration programs (Department of Energy 2004; United States of America 2007a).

  41. 41.

    Hoffert in: United States of America (2006b, 124).

  42. 42.

    United States of America (2006b, 2).

  43. 43.

    Ibid., 1ff. Notably, the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), which was under criticism here, did include CDR measures.

  44. 44.

    Socolow in: United States of America (2006b, 149).

  45. 45.

    Hoffert in: United States of America (2006a, 58).

  46. 46.

    Vellinga and Swart (1991); see also Morseletto et al. (2016, 5).

  47. 47.

    Vellinga and Swart (1991, vii).

  48. 48.

    Royal Society (2009, 4). See Oppenheimer and Petsonk (2005, 205f.) for a detailed historical account of competing interpretations of “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate.

  49. 49.

    Morseletto et al. (2016, 2).

  50. 50.

    United States of America (2007b, c).

  51. 51.

    United States of America (2003, 64).

  52. 52.

    Ibid., 26.

  53. 53.

    United States of America (2007c, 40).

  54. 54.

    See, e.g. Lenton (2011), Fleming (2010, 6), and Russill and Nyssa (2009), and Royal Society (2009, 4).

  55. 55.

    United States of America (2007b).

  56. 56.

    Schnare in: United States of America (2007d, 72).

  57. 57.

    Ibid., 68.

  58. 58.

    See, e.g., Inouye (2008), Mollohan (2009), and United States of America (2007b, 2009a).

  59. 59.

    United States of America (2007b, 12).

  60. 60.

    Inouye (2008).

  61. 61.

    Ibid., 1.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., 20ff.

  63. 63.

    United States of America (2009a, 265).

  64. 64.

    Mollohan (2009, 33).

  65. 65.

    United States of America (2009c, 4).

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., Committee on Science and Technology (2010), GAO (2010), and United States of America (2009).

  67. 67.

    United States of America (2009c). Interestingly, this Congressional effort in advancing the issue is continuing. Eight years later, on November 8th 2017, Subcommittees of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (115th Congress) held a hearing addressing “Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology”.

  68. 68.

    Keller (2009, 95).

  69. 69.

    Ibid., 8.

  70. 70.

    Barrasso (2009, 2011) and EPA (2010).

  71. 71.

    United States of America (2009c, 4, emphasis added).

  72. 72.

    Hoffert in: United States of America (2006a, 94).

  73. 73.

    Rasch in: United States of America (2009c, 164).

  74. 74.

    United States of America (2009c, 4).

  75. 75.

    United States of America (2009c, 315).

  76. 76.

    Committe on Science and Technology (2010, 37ff).

  77. 77.

    Ibid., 40.

  78. 78.

    Lane in: United States of America (2009c, 36), see also: (2009c, 31), and particularly Lackner’s statement in 168f.

  79. 79.

    See Caldeira in: United States of America (2009c, 23) for a taxonomy of the various relevant CDR approaches.

  80. 80.

    See, e.g., United States of America (2009c, 31, 149f).

  81. 81.

    See particularly Robock in: United States of America (2009c, 48f).

  82. 82.

    United States of America (2009c, 158f).

  83. 83.

    Robock in: United States of America (2009c, 49).

  84. 84.

    Gramelsberger and Feichter (2011b, 19).

  85. 85.

    See, e.g., United States of America (2009c, 152, 300).

  86. 86.

    See, e.g., United States of America (2011, 1f.), Holdren in (2009b, 13f). Providing an opposing perspective, Green disqualifies climate models as being “little more predictive than computerized horoscopes” (Green in: United States of America 2010b, 58).

  87. 87.

    See, e.g., Committee on Science and Technology (2010).

  88. 88.

    Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate (1997, 3, 13, 15, 24, 26 etc.).

  89. 89.

    Socolow in: United States of America (2006b, 149).

  90. 90.

    United States of America (2009c, 4, emphasis added).

  91. 91.

    Baker (2017, 20).

  92. 92.

    For a critique of this “moral-technocratic formulation of global environmental problems,” see, e.g., Taylor and Buttel (1992).

  93. 93.

    Ibid., 410.

  94. 94.

    Gramelsberger and Feichter (2011b, 19).

  95. 95.

    Michaelson (1998, 84ff).

  96. 96.

    Morseletto et al. (2016, 3).

  97. 97.

    Pershing in: United States of America (2010b, 40).

  98. 98.

    Porter (2006, 1288).

  99. 99.

    Hulme (2014, 43).

  100. 100.

    Ibid., 40, 43.

  101. 101.

    See, e.g., Morseletto et al. (2016, 3).

  102. 102.

    United States of America (2009c, 4).

  103. 103.

    Heintz (2012, 7), translation J. S. See also Luhmann (1990, 75).

  104. 104.

    Ibid.

Bibliography

  • Baker, Zeke. 2017. “Climate State: Science-State Struggles and the Formation of Climate Science in the US from the 1930s to 1960s.” Social Studies of Science 47 (6): 861–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrasso, John. 2009. Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Act of 2009, as Introduced to the Senate November 5, 2009, One Hundred Eleventh Congress: S.2744. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrasso, John. 2011. Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Prize Act of 2011, One Hundred Twelfth Congress: S.757. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock, Jason, and Sean Low, eds. 2018. Geoengineering Our Climate? Ethics, Politics, and Governance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock, Jason, David S. Battisti, Ken Caldeira, Douglas M. Eardley, Jonathan I. Katz, David W. Keith, Aristides A. N. Patrinos, Daniel P. Schrag, Robert H. Socolow, and Steven E. Koonin. 2009. Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies. Santa Barbara, CA: Novim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Science and Technology. 2010. “Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Coordination, Committee Print by the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, October 2010.” Committee Print Serial No. 111-A. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, Paul J. 2006. “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” Climatic Change 77 (3): 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy. 2004. “69 FR 21514: Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of the Carbon Sequestration Program.” U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Paul N. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. “75 FR 77229: Final Rule on Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincham, Michael. 2014. “The Day Before Yesterday: When Abrupt Climate Change Came to the Chesapeake Bay.” NOAA—Climate.Gov (blog). March 7. https://www.climate.gov/print/181743. Last accessed December 11, 2017.

  • Fleming, James Roger. 1998. Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James Roger. 2010. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fragniere, Augustin, and Stephen Gardiner. 2016. “Why Geoengineering Is Not ‘Plan B’.” Justice and Geoengineering. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2010. Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts: Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • GPO, Government Publishing Office. 2018a. About FDsys. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsysgpopages/fdsysinfo/aboutfdsys.htm. Last accessed May 7, 2017.

  • GPO, Government Publishing Office. 2018b. FDsys: Collections. https://www.gpo.gov/help/index.html#what_s_available.htm. Last accessed May 7, 2017.

  • Gramelsberger, Gabriele, and Johann Feichter. 2011a. “Introduction to the Volume.” In Climate Change and Policy, edited by Gabriele Gramelsberger and Johann Feichter, 1–8. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramelsberger, Gabriele, and Johann Feichter. 2011b. “Modelling the Climate System: An Overview.” In Climate Change and Policy, edited by Gabriele Gramelsberger and Johann Feichter, 9–90. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heintz, Bettina. 2012. “Welterzeugung durch Zahlen Modelle politischer Differenzierung in internationalen Statistiken, 1948–2010.” Soziale Systeme 18: 7–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, Joshua B. 2015. “The Emergency Framing of Solar Geoengineering: Time for a Different Approach.” The Anthropocene Review 2 (2): 147–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, Mike. 2011. “Reducing the Future to Climate: A Story of Climate Determinism and Reductionism.” Osiris 26 (1): 245–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, Mike. 2014. Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inouye, Daniel. 2008. “S.2307 (110th): Global Change Research Improvement Act of 2007, as Reported by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United Sates Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, May 22, 2008.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, David W. 2000. “Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect.” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25 (1): 245–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, David. 2013. A Case for Climate Engineering. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Ann Campbell. 2009. Science in Environmental Policy: The Politics of Objective Advice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, Eli. 2010. Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope-Or Worst Nightmare-for Averting Climate Catastrophe. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuter, Judith. 2015. “Technofix, Plan B or Ultima Ratio? A Review of the Social Science Literature on Climate Engineering Technologies.” Oxford University, Institute of Science, Innovation and Society (2). Occasional Paper Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham, John, Keith Bower, Tom Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Gary Cooper, Tim Craft, et al. 2012. “Marine Cloud Brightening.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370 (1974): 4217–4262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, Timothy M. 2011. “Early Warning of Climate Tipping Points.” Nature Climate Change 1 (4): 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1990. Die Wissenschaft Der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luokkanen, Matti, Suvi Huttunen, and Mikael Hildén. 2014. “Geoengineering, News Media and Metaphors: Framing the Controversial.” Public Understanding of Science 23 (8): 966–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michaelson, Jay. 1998. “Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project.” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 17 (73): 74–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollohan, Alan. 2009. “Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2010: Report Together with Additional Views to Accompany H.R. 2847.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morseletto, Piero, Frank Biermann, and Philipp Pattberg. 2016. “Governing by Targets: Reductio Ad Unum and Evolution of the Two-Degree Climate Target.” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, Oliver. 2016. The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAS, ed. 1992. Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF, National Science Foundation. 2000. “65 FR 21795: Notice of the Availability of Draft Reports and Request for Comment.” U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC, National Research Council. 2015a. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC, National Research Council. 2015b. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, Paul, Bronislaw Szerszynski, Jack Stilgoe, Calum Brown, Bella Eacott, and Andy Yuille. 2014. “Mapping the Landscape of Climate Engineering.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 372 (2031): 20140065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, Michael, and Annie Petsonk. 2005. “Article 2 of the UNFCCC: Historical Origins, Recent Interpretations.” Climatic Change 73 (3): 195–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pachauri, R. K., and Leo Mayer. 2015. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Edited by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC. Fifth Assessment Report. Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, Roger A. 2000a. “Policy History of the US Global Change Research Program: Part I. Administrative Development.” Global Environmental Change 10 (1): 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, Roger A. 2000b. “Policy History of the US Global Change Research Program: Part II. Legislative Process.” Global Environmental Change 10 (2): 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Theodore M. 2006. “Speaking Precision to Power: The Modern Political Role of Social Science.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 73 (4): 1273–1294.

    Google Scholar 

  • PSAC, President’s Science Advisory Committee. 1965. “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russill, Chris, and Zoe Nyssa. 2009. “The Tipping Point Trend in Climate Change Communication.” Global Environmental Change 19 (3): 336–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Stephen H. 1996. “Geoengineering: Could? Or Should? We Do It?” Climatic Change 33 (3): 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert. 2018. “Engineering the Climate: Science, Politics, and the Historical Emergence of a Plan B.” Paper Presented at the Workshop The Politics of Grand Challenges. University of Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sillmann, Jana, Timothy M. Lenton, Anders Levermann, Konrad Ott, Mike Hulme, François Benduhn, and Joshua B. Horton. 2015. “Climate Emergencies Do Not Justify Engineering the Climate.” Nature Climate Change 5 (4): 290–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, Jack. 2015. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Peter J., and Frederick H. Buttel. 1992. “How Do We Know We Have Global Environmental Problems? Science and the Globalization of Environmental Discourse.” Geoforum 23 (3): 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titus, James G. (Ed.). 1990. “Changing Climate and the Coast. Volume 2: Western Africa, the Americas, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Rest of Europe.” Washington, DC: GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 1997. Global Climate Change: Hearings Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Fifth Congress, First Session on Reviewing the Effects of Greenhouse Gases on Global Weather Conditions and Assessing International Policy Options to Reduce the Negative Impacts of Climate Change, July 10 and 17, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2003. What Are the Administration Priorities for Climate Change Technology? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, November 6, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2006a. Department of Energy’s Plan for Climate Change Technology Programs: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, September 20, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2006b. Climate Change Technology Research: Do We Need a “Manhattan Project” for the Environment? Hearing Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, September 21, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2007a. Future of Coal: Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session to Receive Testimony on the “Future of Coal” Report Recently Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 22, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2007b. Effects of Climate Change and Ocean Acidification on Living Marine Organisms: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Commitee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, May 10, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2007c. Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Getting What You Pay For: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, July 18, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2007d. An Examination of the Impacts of Global Warming on the Chesapeake Bay: Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, September 26, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2009a. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2010: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session, March 3, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2009b. Climate Services: Solutions from Commerce to Communities: Hearing Before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, July 30, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2009c. Geoengineering: Parts I, II, and III: Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First and Second Session, November 5, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2009d. Policy Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, First Session to Receive Testimony on Policy Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December 2, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2010a. Fiscal Year 2011 Research and Development Budget Proposals at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Hearing Before the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, March 10, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2010b. Combating Climate Change in Africa: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, April 15, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2011. Weathering Change: Need for Continued Innovation in Forecasting and Prediction: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, One Hundred Twelveth Congress, First Session, November 16, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States of America. 2014. Department of Energy Science and Technology Priorities: Hearing Before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, Second Session, April 10, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vellinga, Pier, and Rob Swart. 1991. “The Greenhouse Marathon: A Proposal for a Global Strategy: A Guest Editorial.” Climatic Change 18 (1): vii–xii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Studies, Forum Internationale Wissenschaft, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Julia Schubert

Authors
  1. Julia Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Schubert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Heidelberg, Germany

    Markus J. Prutsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schubert, J. (2019). Measuring, Modeling, Controlling the Climate? Numerical Expertise in U.S. Climate Engineering Politics. In: Prutsch, M. (eds) Science, Numbers and Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11208-0_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation