Climatic Change

, Volume 111, Issue 2, pp 473–485 | Cite as

The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument

  • Gregor Betz


With the evidence for anthropogenic climate change piling up, suggesting that climate impacts of GHG emissions might have been underestimated in the past (Allison et al. 2009; WBGU 2009), and mitigation policies apparently lagging behind what many scientists consider as necessary reductions in order to prevent dangerous climate change, the debate about intentional climate change, or “climate engineering”, as we shall say in the following, has gained momentum in the past years. While efforts to technically modify earth’s climate had been the focus of sporadic discussions at least since the White House’s Report “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment” (cf. Keith 2000), Paul Crutzen’s cautious plea for research into the feasibility and side-effects of stratospheric sulphur injections (Crutzen 2006) has incited an inter-disciplinary controversy (with a preliminary culmination in the Royal Society’s assessment (Royal Society 2009)), while increasing public awareness and...


Payoff Climate Sensitivity Mitigation Policy Mitigation Effort Solar Radiation Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allison I, Bindoff NL et al. (2009) The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on Latest Climate Science. Sydney, Australia, University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC)Google Scholar
  2. Betz G (2007) Probabilities in climate policy advice: a critical comment. Clim Chang 85(1–2):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnbacher D (1988) Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Stuttgart, ReclamGoogle Scholar
  4. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77(3–4):211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy 4(2):107–128Google Scholar
  6. Elliot R (1982) Faking nature. Inquiry 25(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliot R (1997) Faking nature: the ethics of environmental restoration. Routledge, London; New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz H (2001) The second academic revolution and the rise of entrepreneurial science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 20(2):18–29Google Scholar
  9. Gardiner SM (2004) Ethics and global climate change. Ethics 114(3):555–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardiner SM (2006) A core precautionary principle. J Polit Philos 14(1):33–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardiner SM (2010) Is “Arming the Future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. In: Stephen SC, Gardiner M, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) Climate ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 284–312Google Scholar
  12. Harsanyi JC (1975) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’ theory. Am Polit Sci Rev 69(2):594–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33(3):323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Energ Environ 25:245–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keith DW, Parson E et al (2010) Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463(7280):426–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Louis KS, Blumenthal D et al (1989) Entrepreneurs in academe - an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1):110–131Google Scholar
  17. Luce RD, Raiffa H (1957) Games and decisions: introduction and critical survey. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. McCracken MC (2006) Geoengineering: worthy a cautious evaluation? Clim Chang 77(3–4):235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nussbaum M, Sen A (1993) The quality of life. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rapp F (1989) Introduction: General perspectives on the complexity of philosophy of technology. In: Durbin PT (ed) Philosophy of technology: practical, historical, and other dimensions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, pp ix–xxivGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull At Sci 64(2):14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robock A, Bunzl M et al (2010) A test for geoengineering? Science 327(5965):530–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schelling TC (1996) The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Clim Chang 33(3):303–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could or should we do it? Clim Chang 33(3):291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider SH (2002) Can we estimate the likelihood of climatic changes at 2100? Clim Chang 52(4):441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shue H (2010) Deadly delays, saving opportunities: creating a more dangerous world? In: Gardiner SM (ed) Climate ethics: essential readings. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 146–162Google Scholar
  28. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Sunstein CR (2005) Laws of fear: beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tollefson J (2010) Climate change geoengineering faces ban. Nature 468(7320):13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Virgoe J (2009) International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Clim Change 95(1-2):103–119Google Scholar
  32. WBGU (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. German Advisory Council on Global ChangeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KITKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of PhilosophyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations