Geoengineering governance-by-default: an earth system governance perspective

  • Anita Talberg
  • Peter Christoff
  • Sebastian Thomas
  • David Karoly
Original Paper

Abstract

Geoengineering—the deliberate interference in the climate system to affect global warming—could have significant global environmental and social implications. How to shape formal geoengineering governance mechanisms is an issue of debate. This paper describes and analyses the geoengineering governance landscape that has developed in the absence of explicit geoengineering regulation. An Earth System Governance perspective provides insight into the formation of norms resulting from an overlap in international treaties and from the actions of engaged non-state agents. Specifically, the paper explores the instruments and actors having effect in existing formal and informal geoengineering governance mechanisms. It finds that geoengineering is subject to a form of ‘governance-by-default’. This is due to a situation in which state actors have not resolved the tension between two legal norms: that of ‘precaution’ and that of ‘harm minimisation’. This governance-by-default is characterised by uneven regulation from existing multilateral agreements established for other purposes, an absence of regulation specifically focused on geoengineering, guidance from an international ambition to hold global average warming below 2 °C and to achieve net-zero emissions in the second half of the century, and strong normative engagement by the research community. Governance-by-default is likely to be a stopgap development until more enduring and focused governance emerges.

Keywords

Climate change Climate engineering Solar radiation management Carbon dioxide removal International law 

References

  1. Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(03), 421–456. doi:10.1162/002081800551280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015a). Geoengineering under national law: A case study of the United Kingdom (no. 23). Climate Geoengineering Governance.Google Scholar
  3. Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015b). Geoengineering under national law: A case study of Germany (no. 24). Climate Geoengineering Governance.Google Scholar
  4. Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee. (2010). The Asilomar conference recommendations on principles for research into climate engineering techniques. Washington, DC: Climate Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Belter, C. W., & Seidel, D. J. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), 417–427. doi:10.1002/wcc.229.Google Scholar
  6. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 277–298. doi:10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9(4), 14–40. doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodansky, D. (2011). Governing climate engineering: Scenarios for analysis. Harvard project on climate agreements discussion paper.Google Scholar
  9. Bodle, R., Oberthür, S., Donat, L., Homann, G., Sina, S., & Tedsen, E. (2014). Options and proposals for the international governance of geoengineering. Berlin: Ecologic Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Bracmort, K. L., Richard K., & Lattanzio, R. K. (2013). Geoengineering: Governance and technology policy. Congressional Research Service Library of Congress.Google Scholar
  11. Brent, K., McGee, J., & Maguire, A. (2015). Does the ‘No-Harm’ rule have a role in preventing transboundary harm and harm to the global atmospheric commons from geoengineering? Climate Law, 5(1), 35–63. doi:10.1163/18786561-00501007.Google Scholar
  12. Brent, K., McGee, J., & McDonald, J. (2016). The governance of geoengineering an emerging challenge for international and domestic legal systems. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 24. http://www.jlisjournal.org/abstracts/BrentMcGeeMcDonald.24.1.html.
  13. Cairns, R. (2014). Climates of suspicion: ‘Chemtrail’ conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering. The Geographical Journal. doi:10.1111/geoj.12116.Google Scholar
  14. CBD COP. (2008). Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its ninth meeting, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/16 9 October 2008.Google Scholar
  15. CBD COP. (2010). Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33 29 October 2010.Google Scholar
  16. CBD COP. (2012). Decision adopted by the conference of the Parties to the convention on biological diversity at its eleventh meeting. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/20 5 December 2012.Google Scholar
  17. CBD COP. (2016). Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its thirteenth meeting. UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/14 8 December 2016.Google Scholar
  18. CBD SBSTTA. (2012a, April 2). Regulatory framework for climate-related geoengineering relevant to the convention on biological diversity. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/29.Google Scholar
  19. CBD SBSTTA. (2012b, April 5). Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biological diversity UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28.Google Scholar
  20. CBD SBSTTA. (2012c, April 17). Impacts of climate-related geoengineering on biodiversity: Views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and stakeholders UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/30.Google Scholar
  21. CBD Secretariat. (2012). Geoengineering in relation to the convention on biological diversity: Technical and regulatory matters (no. 66) (p. 152). Montreal.Google Scholar
  22. Chinkin, C. M. (1989). The challenge of soft law: Development and change in international law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 38(04), 850–866. doi:10.1093/iclqaj/38.4.850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision X/33 (2010).Google Scholar
  24. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, opened for signature 29 March 1972, 24 UST 2389 (entered into force 1 September 1972) (‘Liability Convention’).Google Scholar
  25. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, opened for signature 10 December 1976, 1108 UNTS 151 (entered into force 5 October 1978) (‘ENMOD Convention’).Google Scholar
  26. Cressey, D. (2012). Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row. Nature, 10, 1038. doi:10.1038/nature.2012.10645.Google Scholar
  27. Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77(3), 211–220. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dellas, E., Pattberg, P., & Betsill, M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: Refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 85–98. doi:10.1007/s10784-011-9147-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). (2010). Government response to the house of commons science and technology committee 5th report of session 2009–2010: The regulation of geoengineering. London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
  30. Elliott, K. (2010). Geoengineering and the precautionary principle. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(2), 237–253. doi:10.5840/ijap201024221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. doi:10.1162/002081898550789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Geoengineering: Parts I, II, and III–Hearing before the Committee on Science and Technology House of Representatives One Hundred Eleventh Congress First Session and Second Session (2010).Google Scholar
  33. Greenpeace International. (2007). Planktos, Inc., Large-scale Ocean Iron Addition Projects: Submission to Scientific Group of the London Convention 30th meeting and London Protocol 1st Meeting, 18–22 June 2007, LC/SG 30/12/1.Google Scholar
  34. Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Humphreys, D. (2011). Smoke and mirrors: Some reflections on the science and politics of geoengineering. The Journal of Environment and Development, 20(2), 99–120. doi:10.1177/1070496511405302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. iagp.ac.uk. (2015). Who we are | IAGP. http://iagp.ac.uk/who-we-are. Accessed 31 January 2016.
  37. IPCC. (2013). In T. Stocker, D. Qin, G. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the 5th assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. IUCN. (2007). Planktos, Inc., Large-scale Ocean Iron Addition Projects: Submission to Scientific Group of the London Convention 30th meeting and London Protocol 1st Meeting, 18–22 June 2007, LC/SG 30/12.Google Scholar
  39. Keith, D. W. (2000). Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 25(1), 245–284. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keith, D. W. (2013). A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Keith, D. W., Duren, R., & MacMartin, D. G. (2014). Field experiments on solar geoengineering: Report of a workshop exploring a representative research portfolio. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372(2031), 20140175. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keith, D. W., & MacMartin, D. G. (2015). A temporary, moderate and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 201–206. doi:10.1038/nclimate2493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keith, D. W., Parson, E., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Research on global sun block needed now. Nature, 463(7280), 426–427. doi:10.1038/463426a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(01), 7–23. doi:10.1017/S1537592710004068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krasner, S. D. (Ed.). (1983). International regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Ricke, K. L., Cole, J. N. S., et al. (2014). A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering. Environmental Research Letters, 9(7), 074013. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Larson, E. J. (2016). The red dawn of geoengineering: First step toward an effective governance for stratospheric injections. Duke Law and Technology Review, 14, 157–191.Google Scholar
  48. LC/LP. (2008). Resolution LC-LP.1 (2008) on the regulation of ocean fertilization.Google Scholar
  49. LC/LP. (2010). Resolution LC-LP.2 (2010) on the assessment framework for scientific research involving ocean fertilization.Google Scholar
  50. LC/LP. (2013). Annex 4 Resolution LP.4(8) on the amendment to the London Protocol to regulate the placement of matter for ocean fertilization and other marine geoengineering activities.Google Scholar
  51. Le Quéré, C., Moriarty, R., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., et al. (2015). Global carbon budget 2015. Earth System Science Data, 7(2), 349–396. doi:10.5194/essd-7-349-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lenton, T. M. (2014). The Global Potential for Carbon Dioxide Removal. In R. M. Harrison, R. E. Hester, & Royal Society of Chemistry (Great Britain) (Eds.), Geoengineering of the climate system (pp. 52–79). Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  53. Lin, A. C. (2009). Geoengineering governance. Issues in Legal Scholarship. doi:10.2202/1539-8323.1112.Google Scholar
  54. Lin, A. C. (2015). The missing pieces of geoengineering research governance. Minnesota Law Review, 100, 2509–2576.Google Scholar
  55. Mercer, A. M., Keith, D. W., & Sharp, J. D. (2011). Public understanding of solar radiation management. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 044006. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. National Research Council. (2015a). Climate intervention: Carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18805/climate-intervention-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-reliable-sequestration.
  57. National Research Council. (2015b). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlight-to-cool-earth.
  58. NERC. (2016, September). Greenhouse Gas Removal from the Atmosphere Announcement of Opportunity. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).Google Scholar
  59. Nicholson, S., & Thompson, M. (2015). Strange bedfellows: Climate engineering politics in the United States (Opinion Article).Google Scholar
  60. Oldham, P., Szerszynski, B., Stilgoe, J., Brown, C., Eacott, B., & Yuille, A. (2014). Mapping the landscape of climate engineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0065.Google Scholar
  61. Pattberg, P., & Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 367–388. doi:10.1007/s10784-008-9085-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pattberg, P., Widerberg, O., Isailovic, M., & Dias Guerra, F. (2014). Mapping and measuring fragmentation in global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Available at SSRN 2484513. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2484513. Accessed 17 June 2016.
  63. Payne, C. R., Shwom, R., & Heaton, S. (2015). Public participation and norm formation for risky technology: Adaptive governance of solar-radiation management. Climate Law, 5(2–4), 210–251. doi:10.1163/18786561-00504005.Google Scholar
  64. Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nature Clim. Change, 3(5), 451–457. doi:10.1038/nclimate1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, opened for signature 4 October 1991, 30 ILM 1455 (entered into force 14 January 1998) (‘PEPAT’).Google Scholar
  66. Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., & Savulescu, J. (2013). The Oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Redgwell, C. (2011). Geoengineering the climate: Technological solutions to mitigation—Failure or continuing carbon addiction thematic focus: Climate change governance—The international regime complex. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 2011, 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reynolds, J. L. (2014). A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. The Anthropocene Review. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304.Google Scholar
  69. Rickels, W., Klepper, G., Dovern, J., Betz, G., Brachatzek, N., Cacean, S., et al. (2011). Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system (Scoping report). Kiel: Kiel Earth Institute.Google Scholar
  70. Robock, A. (2008). 20 Reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Robock, A., Bunzl, M., Kravitz, B., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2010). A test for geoengineering? Science, 327(5965), 530–531. doi:10.1126/science.1186237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Royal Society. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty (Policy document). London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  73. Schneider, S. H. (1996). Geoengineering: Could—or should—we do it? Climatic Change, 33(3), 291–302. doi:10.1007/BF00142577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Scott, K. N. (2012). International law in the anthropocene: Responding to the geoengineering challenge. Michigan Journal of International Law, 34, 309–358.Google Scholar
  75. The Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 22 April 2016 (‘Paris Agreement’).Google Scholar
  76. Tollefson, J. (2010). Geoengineering faces ban. Nature News, 468(7320), 13–14. doi:10.1038/468013a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, opened for signature 22 March 1985, 1513 UNTS 293 (entered into force 22 September 1985) (‘Vienna Convention’).Google Scholar
  78. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, opened for signature 27 January 1967, 610 UNTS 205 (entered into force 10 October 1967) (‘Outer Space Treaty’).Google Scholar
  79. UN General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015: Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  80. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature 4 June 1992, 1771 UNTS 107 (entered into force 21 March 1994) (‘UNFCCC’).Google Scholar
  81. United States (US). (2007). Planktos, Inc., Large-scale Ocean Iron Addition Projects: Submission to Scientific Group of the London Convention 30th meeting and London Protocol 1st Meeting, 18–22 June 2007, LC/SG 30/INF.28.Google Scholar
  82. Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2011). A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 745–790. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Virgoe, J. (2009). International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 103–119. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9523-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wallace, D., Law, C., Boyd, P., Collos, Y., Croot, P., Denman, K., et al. (2010). Ocean fertilization: A scientific summary for policy makers. http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/11908/1/2010_OceanFertilization_SOLAS.pdf. Accessed 21 November 2015.
  85. Walsh, B. (2010, November 2). Climate: Why It’s a Mistake to Ban Research on Geoengineering. Time. http://science.time.com/2010/11/02/climate-why-its-a-mistake-to-ban-research-on-geoengineering/. Accessed 2 July 2017.
  86. Watson, M. (2012, May 16). Testbed news. the reluctant geoengineer. http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/testbed-news.html. Accessed 4 October 2014.
  87. WCED. (1987). Our common future: Report of the world commission on environment and development. World Commission on Environment and Development.Google Scholar
  88. Williamson, P., Wallace, D. W. R., Law, C. S., Boyd, P. W., Collos, Y., Croot, P., et al. (2012). Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 90(6), 475–488. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Winter, G. (2011). Climate engineering and international law: Last resort or the end of humanity? Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 20(3), 277–289. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9388.2012.00730.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Australian-German Climate and Energy CollegeUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Resource ManagementUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Sustainability Science Lab and School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  4. 4.School of Earth Sciences and Australian-German Climate and Energy CollegeUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations