Skip to main content
Read full article

Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?

Climatic Change volume 121, pages 553–565 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Research on geoengineering – deliberate management of the Earth’s climate system – is being increasingly discussed within the science and policy communities. While justified as necessary in order to expand the range of options available to policy makers in the future, geoengineering research has already engendered public controversy. Proposed projects have been protested or cancelled, and calls for a governance framework abound. In this paper, we consider the reasons why geoengineering research might be subject to additional governance and suggest mechanisms that might be usefully applied in developing such a framework. We consider criteria for governance as raised by a review of the growing literature on geoengineering and other controversial scientific topics. We suggest three families of concern that any governance research framework must respond to: the direct physical risks of the research; the transparency and responsibility in decision making for the research; and the larger societal meanings of the research. We review what mechanisms might be available to respond to these three families of concern, and consider how these might apply to geoengineering research.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Search of major world publications using Academic Lexis Nexis database conducted February 21st, 2013.

References

  1. Anonymous (2010a) The Asilomar conference report. http://climateresponsefund.org/images/Conference/finalfinalreport.pdf Accessed 16 September 2012. pp 1–40

  2. Anonymous (2010b) The regulation of geoengineering, UK house of commons science and technology select committee on “the regulation of geoengineering.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm . Accessed 16 September 2012

  3. Anonymous (2012) A charter for geoengineering. Nat 485:415

    Google Scholar 

  4. Battisti D, Blackstock JJ, Caldeira K, Eardley DE, Katz JI, Keith DW, Koonin SE, Patrinos AAN, Schrag DP, Socolow RH (2009) Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 6:452015. doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/5/452015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Betts RA, Collins M, Hemming DL, Jones CD, Lowe JA, Sanderson MG (2011) When could global warming reach 4°C? Philos Trans R Soc A 369(1934):67–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bipartisan Policy Center (2011) Geoengineering: a national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Bipartisan Policy Center, 33 pages. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Climate%20Remediation%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed 19 September 2012

  7. Blackstock J, Long J (2010) The politics of geoengineering. Sci 327:527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bodansky D (1996) May we engineer the climate? Clim Chang 33:309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bodansky D (2011) Governing climate engineering: scenarios for analysis. SSRN white paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1963397 Accessed 19 September 2012. pp 1–37

  10. Bulkeley H et al (2012) Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 30(4):591–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bunzl M (2009) Researching geoengineering: should not or could not? Environ Res Lett 4(4):045104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cicerone RJ (2006) Geoengineering: encouraging research and overseeing implementation. Clim Chang 77(3):221–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Corner A, Pidgeon N (2010) Geoengineering the Climate: the social and ethical implications. Environ 52(1):24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Corner A, Pidgeon N, Parkhill K (2012) Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of “upstream” engagement. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 3:451–466. doi:10.1002/wcc.176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Council on Environmental Quality (1978) Part 1508 – terminology and index (for the national environmental protection act). http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm. Accessed 11 September 2012

  16. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim Chang 77(3–4):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dietz T, Stern PC (eds) (2008) Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12434#toc Accessed 13 September 2012

  18. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. eCFR (2012) Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=2a5e494cd1692c731f998f1c96fb64a0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=45:3.1.2.4.16&idno=45#45:3.1.2.4.16.0.4.3 Accessed September 23, 2012

  20. EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) (2012) SPICE project update. Available at: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2012/Pages/spiceprojectupdate.aspx. Accessed 2 February 2013

  21. Fisher E (2007) Ethnographic invention: probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2):155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fleming JR (2007) The climate engineers: playing god to save the planet. The Wilson Q, Spring 2007:46–60. http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/new_mexico_198/16YF_6_2007_The_Climate_Engineers_by_Fleming_Playing_God_to_Save_the_Planet_The_Wilson_Quarterly_2007.pdf . Accessed 19 September 2012

  23. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures:1–17

  24. GAO (2010) Climate change: a coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts. GAO Report 10–903. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903 . Accessed 19 September 2012

  25. Gardiner (2010) Is “arming the future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. In: Gardiner SM, Caney S, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) Climate ethics. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 402:C81–C84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guston DH (2008) Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454(7207):940–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hale B (2012) The world that would have been: Moral hazard arguments against geoengineering. In: Preston C (ed) Reflecting sunlight: The ethics of solar radiation management. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hale B, Dilling L (2011) Geoengineering, ocean fertilization, and the problem of permissible pollution. Sci Technol Hum Value 36:190–212. doi:10.1177/0162243910366150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hamilton C (2011) Ethical anxieties about geoengineering: moral hazard, slippery slope and playing god. Paper presented to a conference of the Australian Academy of Science Canberra, 27 September 2011. http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/ethical_anxieties_about_geoengineering.pdf Accessed 19 September 2012

  32. Humphreys D (2011) Smoke and mirrors: some reflections on the science and politics of geoengineering. J Environ Dev 20(2):99–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jamieson D (1996) Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Chang 33:323–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Karinen R, Guston DH (2010) Toward anticipatory governance: the experience with nanotechnology. In: Kaiser M et al (eds) Governing future technologies. Sociology of the Sciences 217 Yearbook 27. Springer, New York, pp 217–232

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keith DW (2000) Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annu Rev Environ Resour 25:245–284

    Google Scholar 

  36. Keith DW, Parson E, Morgan MG (2010) Research on global sunblock needed now. Nat 463:426–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Liu H, Priest S (2009) Understanding public support for stem cell research: media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Underst Sci 18(6):704–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lovbrand E (2007) Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundary-work for Swedish carbon cycle science. Environ Sci Policy 10:39–47. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. MacCracken MC (2009) Beyond Mitigation: Potential Options for Counter-Balancing the Climatic and Environmental Consequences of the Rising Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4938, 45 pp

  40. Marchetti C (1977) On geoengineering and the CO2 problem. Clim Chang 1:59–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. McCain L (2002) Informing technology policy decisions: the US human genome project’s ethical, legal, and social implications programs as a critical case. Technol Soc 24:111–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Macnaghten P, Owen R (2011) Good governance for geoengineering. Nature 479:293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McNie E (2007) Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environ Sci Policy 10:17–38. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mercer AM, Keith DW, Sharp JD (2011) Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environ Res Lett 6(4):044006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Morrow DR, Kopp RE, Oppenheimer M (2009) Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research. Environ Res Lett 4(4):045106. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Parson EA, Keith DW (2013) End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science 339:1278–1279. doi:10.1126/science.1232527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Parthasarathy S (2010) Breaking the expertise barrier: understanding activist strategies in science and technology policy domains. Sci and Pub Pol 37:355–367. doi:10.3152/030234210X501180

  48. Parthasarathy S, Rayburn L, Anderson M, Mannisto J, Maguire M, Najib D (2010) Geoengineering in the Arctic: defining the governance dilemma. STPP Working Paper 10–3. http://www.stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/policy-consultations/index.php . Accessed 19 September 2012

  49. Rayner S, Cantor R (1987) How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Anal 7:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Robock A, Bunzl M, Kravitz B, Stenchikov G (2010) A test for geoengineering? Science 327:530–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Roco MS, Bainbridge WS (2005) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: maximizing human benefit. J Nanoparticle Res 7:1–13. doi:10.1007/s11051-004-2336-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sarewitz D (2010) Not by experts alone. Nat 466:688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) (2011) Solar radiation management: the governance of research. http://www.srmgi.org/report/. Accessed 19 September 2012

  55. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society: London. http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/ Accessed 19 September 2012

  56. Victor DG, Morgan M, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Ricke K (2009) The geoengineering option. Foreign Aff 88(2):64–76

    Google Scholar 

  57. Virgoe J (2009) International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Clim Chang 95:103–119. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9523-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Williamson P, Wallace DWR, Law CS, Boyd PW, Collos Y, Croot P, Denman K, Riebesell U, Takeda S, Vivian C (2012) Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: a review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Saf Environ Prot 90:475–488. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. DEMOS, UK. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/paddlingupstream. Accessed 19 September 2012

  60. Wilsdon J, Wynne B, Stilgoe J (2005) The public value of science: or how to ensure that science really matters. DEMOS: UK. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/publicvalueofscience/. Accessed 19 September 2012

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Environmental Studies Program and Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA

    Lisa Dilling & Rachel Hauser

  2. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

    Rachel Hauser

Authors
  1. Lisa Dilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Hauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Dilling.

Additional information

This article is part of a special issue on “Geoengineering Research and its Limitations” edited by Robert Wood, Stephen Gardiner, and Lauren Hartzell-Nichols.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dilling, L., Hauser, R. Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?. Climatic Change 121, 553–565 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0835-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Governance Mechanism
  • Public Engagement
  • Governance Framework
  • Solar Radiation Management
  • Physical Risk