Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geoengineering: Reflections on Current Debates

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technoscience and Citizenship: Ethics and Governance in the Digital Society

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 17))

Abstract

In this paper we propose to investigate the current debates on geoengineering, here considered as an illustrative metaphor of particular technoscientific promises and ‘techno-fix’ narratives that are emerging in our society. After a brief introduction, where we provide the necessary background to understand the complex issues surrounding geoengineering, we discuss the relevance of this investigation. We then proceed to explore the controversies behind geoengineering, which start with its own definition. The analysis of the current debates around geoengineering experimentation, regulation and deployment reveal some of the dominant narratives of technoscientific progress and highlight important tensions and frictions in the relationship between science, policy and society. A reflection on these issues suggests the relevance of developing alternative approaches to furthering the ‘democratisation and de-alienation’ of geoengineering debates, thus responding to a perceived need for more careful consideration of the normative assumptions that lie behind the idea of deliberately manipulating Earth’s climate to offset anthropogenic climate change.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission.

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
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer coined the term Anthropocene to describe a new geological epoch, ‘in which humankind has emerged as a globally significant—and potentially intelligent—force capable of reshaping the face of the planet’ (Clark et al. 2004) .

  2. 2.

    In order to exemplify these implications it seems appropriate to refer briefly to the use of weather modification techniques (such as cloud seeding and hurricane suppression) that are taking place in many countries around the world. As recently stated by the World Meteorological Organisation: ‘since the 1980’s there has been a decline in support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects’ (WMO 2010). Given the similarities between weather modification (WM) techniques and some geoengineering methods, the concerns raised by the increasing number of WM operational programmes (fog dispersion, rain and snow enhancement and hail suppression) have gained momentum in the context of the contemporary debates on geoengineering—leading, almost inevitably, to a discussion on the criteria that differentiate these two domains. However, although widely mentioned, the scale marker seems to be insufficient to exclude WM techniques from the vast range of methods that the term geoengineering encompasses. This becomes clear from the way the ‘countervailing measure criterion’ has been evoked, namely by drawing attention to the differences between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’ modification techniques, and to the far-reaching consequences of the latter: ‘Weather modifications such as cloud seeding which affect the weather for no longer than a season, in our view, do not fall within the definition of geoengineering (…) We conclude that weather techniques such as cloud seeding should not be included within the definition of geoengineering used for the purposes of activities designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change’ (UK House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee 2010, p. 15). Nonetheless, it is telling that according to this same report: ‘Cloud seeding could affect climate when carried out over a long period’ (Idem).

  3. 3.

    ‘Of course there is geoengineering and then there is GEOENGINEERING. Nobody gets very wound up about the idea of planting trees or painting roofs white as instances of geoengineering—which is not to say that they will necessarily do much good. The kind of geoengineering that elicits howls of disapproval is grander than this—it is things like space mirrors, sulphur injection into the upper atmosphere, and iron fertilisation of the oceans—it is the idea of intervention on a grand scale’ (Bunzl 2009).

  4. 4.

    The term ‘chemtrail’ is derived from ‘chemical trail’ and specifically refers to chemical or biological agent trails left by aircraft for a purpose undisclosed to the general public, allegedly causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.

  5. 5.

    In this paper the authors refer to SRM as “short-wave climate engineering” (SWCE).

  6. 6.

    According to the authors, other kinds of climate engineering research (such as modelling studies and engineering studies) do not raise the same concerns as climatic studies – which aim ‘to determine the climatic response to climate engineering and therefore could have widespread impacts on both human populations and the biosphere’.

  7. 7.

    Leading to the creation of new international legal instruments, such as the 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), and Articles 35(3) and 55(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention.

References

  • Adam, David. 2009. Five extreme ways to beat climate change. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/04/extreme-climate-change-solutions/print.

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The human condition, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, Scott. 2008. The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environmental and Resource Economics 39(1): 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, Rob, Jason Chilvers, Naomi E. Vaughan, and Timothy M. Lenton. 2012. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(6): 597–615. doi:10.1002/wcc.197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, Sacha Loeve, Alfred Nordmann, and Astrid Schwarz. 2011. Matters of interest: The objects of research in science and technoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42(2): 365–383. doi:10.1007/s10838-011-9172-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, Gregor, and Sebastian Cacean. 2012. Ethical aspects of climate engineering. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock, Jason J., and Jane C.S. Long. 2010. The politics of geoengineering. Science 327(5965): 527. doi:10.1126/science.1183877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackstock, Jason J., 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. Novim Study Group, 2009 [cited 20.09.2010]. Available from http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0907/0907.5140.pdf.

  • Bodansky, Daniel. 2011. Governing climate engineering: Scenarios for analysis. Discussion paper 2011–47, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, Daniel. 2013. The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance. SSRN 2012 [cited May 11 2013]. Available from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2168850.

  • Bodle, Ralph. 2013. Climate law and geoengineering. In Climate change and the law, ed. Erkki Johannes Hollo, Kati Kulovesi, and Michael Mehling, 447–471. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnheim, Noah Byron. 2010. History of climate engineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1(6): 891–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, O., N. Gruber, and J. Blackstock. 2011. Summary of the synthesis session In IPCC expert meeting report on geoengineering, ed. O. Edenhofer, C. Field, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, T. Stocker, V. Barros, Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen, and M. Mastrandrea. IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Philip W. 2008. Ranking geo-engineering schemes. Nature Geoscience Nov, 1: 722–724. doi:10.1038/ngeo348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracmort, Kelsi, and Richard K. Lattanzio. 2013. Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy (Congressional Research Service Report No. R41471). Available from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf.

  • Bronson, Diana, Pat Mooney, and Kathy Jo Wetter. 2009. Retooling the planet? Climate chaos in the geoengineering age. A report prepared by ETC Group for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Available from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/retooling-planet-new-etc-group-report-geoengineering.

  • Brovkin, Victor, Vladimir Petoukhov, Martin Claussen, Eva Bauer, David Archer, and Carlo Jaeger. 2009. Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Climatic Change 92(3): 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budyko, Mikhail Ivanovich. 1977. Climatic changes. Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad (R) (1977) English translation by American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 261 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunzl, Martin. 2009. Researching geoengineering: Should not or could not? Environmental Research Letters 4(4): 1–3. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, Martin. 2011. Knowledge, politics, and commerce: Science under the pressure of practice. In Science in the context of application, ed. Martin Carrier and Alfred Nordmann, 11–30. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cicerone, Ralph J. 2006. Geoengineering: Encouraging research and overseeing implementation. Climatic Change 77: 221–226. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9102-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, William C., Hans J. Schellnhuber, and Paul J. Crutzen. 2004. Science for global sustainability: Toward a new paradigm. In Earth system analysis for sustainability, ed. Hans J. Schellnhuber, Paul J. Crutzen, William C. Clark, Martin Claussen, and Hermann Held, 1–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, A., N. Pidgeon, and K. Parkhill. 2012. Perceptions of geoengineering: Public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’ engagement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(5): 451–466. doi:10.1002/wcc.176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, Paul J. 2006. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77(3–4): 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugene F. Stoermer. 2000. The anthropocene. Global Change Newsletter 41: 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccleston, Charles H., and Frederic March. 2011. Global environmental policy: Concepts, principles and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2010. Geopiracy – The case against geoengineering. Ottawa: ETC Group. Available from http://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf.

  • Felt, U., B. Wynne, M. Callon, M.E. Gonçalves, S. Jasanoff, M. Jepsen, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Z. Konopasek, S. May, C. Neubauer, A. Rip, K. Siune, A. Stirling, and M. Tallacchini. 2007. Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James R. 2006. The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 37(1): 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James R. 2007. The climate engineers: Playing god to save the planet. Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2007 31: 46–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, James R. 2010. Fixing the sky – The checkered history of weather and climate control, Columbia studies in international and global history. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountain, Henry. 2003. The science of rain-making is still patchy. New York Times (October 19, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1994a. Emergent complex systems. Futures 26(6): 568–582. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(94)90029-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1994b. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(12): 1881–1885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Roger Strand. 2011. Change and commitment: Beyond risk and responsibility. Journal of Risk Research 14(8): 995–1003. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.571784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, Stephen. 2010. Is ‘arming the future’ with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. In Climate ethics, essential readings, ed. S.M. Gardiner, S. Caney, D. Jamieson, and H. Shue, 284–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, Stephen. 2011. A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, Stephen. 2012. The desperation argument for geoengineering. PS: Political Science and Politics. Available from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2183457.

  • Goodell, Jeff. 2010. How to cool the planet: Geoengineering and the audacious quest to fix earth’s climate. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C., B. Monger, M. Huntley. 2010. Geoengineering: The inescapable truth of getting to 350. Solutions 1(5): 57–66. Available from, http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/771.

  • Hamilton, Clive. 2010. The powerful coalition that wants to engineer the world’s climate. The Guardian. Available from, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/13/geoengineering-coalition-world-climate.

  • Hamilton, Clive. 2013. No, we should not just ‘at least do the research’. Nature 496(7444): 139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_Onco mouse™, Feminist and Technoscience. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegerl, Gabriele C., and Susan Solomon. 2009. Risks of climate engineering. Science 325: 955–956. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5943/955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huttunen, Suvi, and Mikael Hildén. 2013. Framing the controversial: Geoengineering in academic literature. Science Communication, June 28. doi:10.1177/1075547013492435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman, Mason. 2010. Planning for plan B. Nature 4 (Nature reports – Climate change): 7–9. Available from http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1001/full/climate.2010.135.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Alan, and Wynne Brian. 1996. Introduction. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, ed. Irwin Alan and Wynne Brian, 47–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, Dale. 1996. Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change 33: 323–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society 27(2–3): 233–253. doi:10.1177/0263276409361497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, David W. 2000. Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 25: 245–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, David W. 2002. Geoengineering. In Encyclopedia of global change, ed. A.S. Goudie, 495–502. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, David W., and Hadi Dowlatabadi. 1992. A serious look at geoengineering. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 73(27): 289–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, Eli. 2010. The latest on geoengineering. Science 327(5969): 1070–1071. doi:10.1126/science.327.5969.1070-b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, John. 2002. Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, Mark G. 2006. The geoengineering dilemma: To speak or not to speak. Climatic Change 77: 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton, T.M., and N.E. Vaughan. 2009. The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 9: 5539–5561. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, James. 2008. A geophysiologist’s thoughts on geoengineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366(1882): 3883–3890. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, James. 2009. The vanishing face of Gaia: A final warning. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luokkanen, Matti, Suvi Huttunen, and Mikael Hildén. 2013. Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: Framing the controversial. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662513475966.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCracken, Michaels C. 2009. Beyond mitigation: Potential options for counter-balancing the climatic and environmental consequences of the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Washigton, DC: The World Bank. Available from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9051.

  • Macnaghten, Phil, and Richard Owen. 2011. Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479(7373): 293. doi:10.1038/479293a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchetti, Cesare. 1977. On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Climatic Change 1(1): 59–68. doi:10.1007/BF00162777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, H. Damon, and Ken Caldeira. 2007. Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 104(24): 9949–9954. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700419104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, Mike. 2006. Technoscience and everyday life: The complex simplicities of the mundane. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Clark A. 2010a. The human subjects of geoengineering. Arizona State University, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, [cited 08.09.2010]. Available from http://www.cspo.org/soapbox/view/100311P9IA/the-human-subjects-of-geoengineering/.

  • Miller, Clark A. 2010b. International review of geoengineering. Arizona State University, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, [cited 08.09.2010]. Available from http://www.cspo.org/soapbox/view/100319P4WK/international-review-of-geoengineering/.

  • Montenegro, Maywa, and Veronique Greenwood. 2009. Will the future be geoengineered? Available from http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/will_the_future_be_geo-engineered1/.

  • Morrow, David R., Robert E. Kopp, and Michael Oppenheimer. 2009. Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research. Environmental Research Letters 4. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, Oliver. 2007. Climate change: Is this what it takes to save the world? Nature 447: 132–136. doi:10.1038/447132a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming). 1992. Policy implications of greenhouse warming: Mitigation, adaptation, and the science base. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2003. Critical issues in weather modification research. Committee on the status and future directions in U.S. weather modification research and operations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NERC. 2010a. Experiment earth? Report on a public dialogue on geoengineering. The Natural Environment Research Council, The Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, The Royal Society, and the multi-agency Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • NERC. 2010b. Experiment earth – Public dialogue on geoengineering (Geoengineering online survey from 5th March to 12th April 2010 – Summary report). Available from http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/geoengineering_online-survey_final-report_june2010.pdf.

  • Nerlich, B., and R. Jaspal. 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol 27(2): 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Robert L. 2011. Geoengineering for decision makers. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/report-release-geoengineering-for-decision-makers.

  • Orr, P.R., C.L. Twigger-Ross, E. Kashefi, K. Rathouse, and J.D. Haigh. 2011. Experiment earth? Report on a public dialogue on geoengineering. A report to the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Available from http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-evaluation-report.pdf.

  • Parkhill, Karen, and Nick Pidgeon. 2011. Public engagement on geoengineering research: Preliminary report on the SPICE deliberative workshops (Understanding risk group working paper, 11–01, Cardiff University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, Roger Jr. 2010. The climate fix: What scientists and politicians won’t teel you about global warming. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poumadère, M., R. Bertoldo, and J. Samadi. 2011. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: Nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2(5): 712–727. doi:10.1002/wcc.134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Russell, Steve Clarke, Mark Sheehan, Tom Douglas, Bennett Foddy, and Julian Savulescu. 2010. The ethics of geoengineering [Working Draft]. Available from http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21325/Ethics_of_Geoengineering_Working_Draft.pdf.

  • Rayner, Steve, Catherine Redgwell, Julian Savulescu, Nick Pidgeon, and Tim Kruger. 2009. Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee enquiry into The Regulation of Geoengineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayner, Steve, Clare Heyward, Tim Kruger, Nick Pidgeon, Catherine Redgwell, and Julian Savulescu. 2013. The Oxford principles. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickels, W., G. Klepper, J. Dovern, G. Betz, N. Brachatzek, S. Cacean, K. Güssow, Heintzenberg J., S. Hiller, C. Hoose, T. Leisner, A. Oschlies, U. Platt, A. Proelß, O. Renn, S. Schäfer, and Zürn 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: Kiel Earth Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robock, Alan. 2008. 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64(2): 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, Alan. 2011. Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble: An editorial comment. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0017-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommetveit, Kjetil, Silvio Funtowicz, and Roger Strand. 2010. Knowledge, democracy and action in response to climate change. In Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future, ed. R. Bhaskar, C. Frank, K.G. Hoyer, P. Naess, and J. Parker, 149–163. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7(2004): 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, Thomas. 1996. The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Climatic Change 33(3): 303–307. doi:10.1007/BF00142578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, Stephen H. 1996. Geoengineering: Could— or should— we do it? Climatic Change 33(3): 291–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte, Samantha, Eleftheria Vasileiadou, and Arthur C. Petersen. 2013. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: How newspaper frames are changing. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 1–16. doi:10.1080/1943815x.2012.759593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, Peter, and Doug Randall. 2003. An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States National Security (report prepared by the Global Business Network (GBN) for the Department of Defence).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, Astrid, and Wolfgang Krohn. 2011. Experimenting with the concept of experiment: Probing the epochal break. In Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break, ed. Alfred Nordmann, Hans Radder, and Gregor Schiemann, 119–134. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikka, T. 2012. A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Discourse Studies 9(2): 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer-Vine, Jeremy. Choose your own Geohack. Explore geoengineering’s most interesting strategies with Slate’s interactive guide. The Slate Group [September 24, 2010]. Available from http://www.slate.com/id/2268479/.

  • Siune, K., E. Markus, M. Calloni, U. Felt, A. Gorski, A. Grunwald, A.Rip, V. Semir, and S. Wyatt. 2009. Challenging futures of science in society – Emerging trend and cutting-edge issues. Report of the MASIS expert group setup by the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Science in Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. 2009. Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • UK House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee. 2010. The regulation of geoengineering, fifth report of session 2009–10. Available from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf

  • Vaughan, Naomi, and Timothy Lenton. 2011. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Climatic Change 109(3–4): 745–790. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, David G. 2008. On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24(2): 322–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, David G., M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke. 2009. The geoengineering option–A last resort against global warming? Foreign Affairs 88(2): 64–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, Robert DeCourcy. 1930. How far can man control his climate? The Scientific Monthly 30: 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Alvin M. 1991. Can technology replace social engineering? In Controlling technology: Contemporary issues, ed. W.B. Thompson, 41–48. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, P., Watson, R.T., Mace, G., Artaxo, P., Bodle, R., Galaz, V., Parker, A., Santillo, D., Vivian, C., Cooper, D., Webbe, J., Cung, A., and E. Woods. 2012. Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity. Part I of: Geoengineering in relation to the convention on biological diversity: Technical and regulatory matters. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Technical Series No. 66, 152 pages.

    Google Scholar 

  • WMO. 2010. Executive summary of the WMO statement on weather modification (Expert team on weather modification research, Abu Dhabi, 22–24 March 2010). Available from https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/wwrp/new/documents/WMR_documents.final_27_April_1.FINAL.pdf.

  • Yanarella, Ernest J., and Christopher Rice. 2011. Global warming and the specter of geoengineering: Ecological apocalypse, modernist hubris, and scientific-technological salvation in Kim Stanley Robinson’s global warming trilogy. In Engineering earth: The impacts of megaengineering projects, ed. Stanley D. Brunn, 2233–2252. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission – Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

    Paula Curvelo & Ângela Guimarães Pereira

Authors
  1. Paula Curvelo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ângela Guimarães Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Curvelo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities (SVT), University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Ana Delgado

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Curvelo, P., Guimarães Pereira, Â. (2016). Geoengineering: Reflections on Current Debates. In: Delgado, A. (eds) Technoscience and Citizenship: Ethics and Governance in the Digital Society. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32414-2_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation