Abstract
This Chapter takes a deep dive into understandings of solar geoengineering (SGE) today, in an effort to understand attempts to stabilise and normalise it as a concept. The focus is on three things: epistemological and knowledge choices, questions of values and ontological ordering, and the relationship of SGE to power and the powerful. In particular, a critical eye is cast on the elevation of the ‘techno-scientific’ in institutional assessments of SGE, the invocation of ‘emergency’, the elevation of cost-benefit thinking, the narrowing of ethical debates, and the implications of SGE for capitalism and geo-political ordering. In each case the analysis shows how contradictory forces and imperatives cohabit, in ways which restrain SGE’s normalisation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The exceptions can be found in reports which emanate from policy advocacy organisations: such as the enthusiastic reports sponsored by the ideologically free-market American Enterprise Institute (2013), where the lead author has a policy background, as well as the related Copenhagen Consensus Center report on geoengineering (Bickel and Lane 2009), and oppositional reports associated with The ETC Group (2010; ETC Group/Biofuelwatch 2017).
- 2.
The historic evidence reveals some devastating effects, including massive crop failures, famine, war and deaths running into the millions, such as occurred in the wake of the Tambora eruption of 1815 (Wood 2014).
- 3.
For example, placing the emphasis on the scale of the technology and whether it is contained or unbounded (out in the open) would result in SGE and ocean fertilisation being in one category and CCS and painting roofs white in another.
- 4.
Indeed costing is often limited to estimating the direct expenses associated with delivering aerosols into the stratosphere (McClellan et al. 2012).
- 5.
The precautionary principle is itself a controversial one and has been formulated in a variety of ways. The version most commonly used in a policy context is that formulated by the United Nations in 1992: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (United Nations 1992). Here the emphasis is on enabling action. The principle is often also invoked to prevent or delay the utilisation of technologies or substances whose effects are believed to be harmful although not sufficiently understood (e.g. GMOs). See Whiteside (2006) for a general account of the principle.
- 6.
As a broad indicator, to balance the warming effects of a doubling of CO2 concentrations would require a compensation of about 4 W/m2 (Royal Society 2009: 23). To deploy SGE now as a pre-emptive strategy would need a smaller W/m2 compensation in the order of 1 W/m2.
- 7.
There are many existing critiques of cost-benefit analysis, especially in relation to environmental damage (see for example Wegner and Pascual 2011). See also Porter’s account of the rise of cost-benefit analysis in the United States (1995) and MacKenzie’s analysis, in the context of carbon markets, of ‘making things the same’ (2009).
- 8.
See, for example, the debate on whether SGE is a ‘public good’ between Gardiner, who argues that doing so “arbitrarily marginalises ethical concerns” (2013: 513 and also 2014), and Morrow, who argues that “[f]raming geoengineering as a public good is useful because it allows commentators to draw on the existing economic, philosophical, and social scientific literature on the governance of public goods” (2014: 95). This suggests they are in agreement that the concept is doing normative work, whilst disagreeing about the merits of that normative work and the framings being relied upon.
- 9.
Only the most free-market enthusiastic policy reports, such as those of the AEI and the Copenhagen Consensus Center already mentioned, are enthusiastic about drawing out this implication.
- 10.
It could even be argued that that the relevant knowledges for understanding geoengineering are primarily those which think about power, ideology and the co-production of the techno-social; secondarily, those on the terrain of climate policy considering the implications (and public perspectives) of adding intervention as a new policy leg; and then the relevant fields of physics, chemistry, engineering, various Earth system sciences and cognate disciplines. This is the reverse of the current order of knowledge-privileging.
- 11.
See also Castree’s account of ‘convergence science’, and other attempts from the sciences to “…bring people and nature into a single analytical domain, aspiring to mirror in a computational environment real-world couplings between socio-economic and physical systems” (2015: 4).
- 12.
This argument has its own assumptions. It requires climate risk to be prioritised over any risks which may flow from using SGE technology. It assumes that an engineered reduction in global average temperature rises will, on balance, be positive, and certainly better than continued global warming.
- 13.
Few globally, especially in relation to climate policy, would regard the US as a ‘responsible’ country, even more so in the Trump era.
- 14.
Importantly, the question of whether to deploy SGE at all gets less attention and attempts to get SGE prohibited (under the Convention on Biodiversity for example), have been strongly resisted.
- 15.
It is true, of course, that similar, often higher, levels of environmental degradation could be found in the planned economies of the former Communist states, and that environmental degradation is also a feature of nominally Communist, state-capitalist, economies such as contemporary China.
- 16.
The widespread assumption has been that SGE would divert attention from mitigation and adaptation efforts and encourage ‘business-as-usual’ by making emissions reductions appear less urgent or necessary (see for example Hale 2012; Lin 2013). More recently, a substantial, largely speculative, literature has emerged which challenges these assumptions and argues, variously, that ‘it would not’ to ‘it would encourage more mitigation’ to ‘if it reduces mitigation would that be a bad thing?’. For a survey of some of the arguments see Morrow (2014).
References
Arctic Methane Emergency Group. (2014, December 4). Press release. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://web.archive.org/web/20141216194538/ameg.me/
Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015). International legal and regulatory issues of climate geoengineering governance: Rethinking the approach. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 21. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper21armeniredgwelltheinternationalcontextrevise-.pdf
Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee (ASOC). (2010). The Asilomar conference recommendations on principles for research into climate engineering techniques. Washington, DC: Climate Institute.
Barrett, S. (2008). The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environmental and Resource Economics, 39(1), 45–54.
Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy & Society, 37(1), 20–49.
Battisti, D. S., & Naylor, R. L. (2009). Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science, 323(5911), 240–244.
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329–345.
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2012). A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. WIREs Climate Change, 3(6), 597–615.
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2013). ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: Multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926–937.
Bickel, J. E., & Agrawal, S. (2013). Reexamining the economics of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 119(3–4), 993–1006.
Bickel, J. E., & Lane, L. (2009). An analysis of climate engineering as a response to climate change. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center.
Bickel, J. E., & Lane, L. (2012). Challenge paper: Climate change, climate engineering R&D. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center.
Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). (2011). Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center Task Force on Climate Remediation Research.
Blackstock, J. J., Battisti, D. S., Caldeira, K., Eardley, D. M., Katz, J. I., Keith, D. W., et al. (2009). Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies. Santa Barbara: Novim. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140
Brennan, J. (2016). CIA director on the geopolitical risks of climate geoengineering. Video and transcript of talk to Council on Foreign Relations, July 2016. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from https://climateandsecurity.org/2016/07/25/cia-director-on-the-geopolitical-risks-of-climate-geoengineering/#more-9259
Briggle, A. (2018). Beware of the toll keepers: The ethics of geoengineering ethics. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21(2), 187–189.
C2G2 (Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative). (2018, November). Governing Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.c2g2.net/wp-content/uploads/C2G2_Solar-Brief-hyperlink.pdf
Caldeira, K. (2007, October 24). How to cool the globe. New York Times. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/24caldiera.html?_r=0
Calhoun, C. (2010). The idea of emergency: Humanitarian action and global (dis)order. In D. Fassin & M. Pandolfi (Eds.), Contemporary states of emergency: The politics of military and humanitarian interventions (pp. 29–58). New York: Zone Books.
Castree, N. (2015). Geography and global science: Relationships necessary, absent, and possible. Geographical Research, 53(1), 1–15.
Castree, N., Demeritt, D., & Liverman, D. (2009). Introduction: Making sense of environmental geography. In N. Castree, D. Demeritt, D. Liverman, & B. Rhoads (Eds.), A companion to environmental geography. Oxford: Blackwell.
Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environment, 52(1), 24–37.
Curry, J. A., & Webster, P. J. (2011). Climate science and the uncertainty monster. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 92, 1667–1682.
Curvelo, P. (2012). Exploring the ethics of geoengineering through images. The International Journal of the Image, 2(2), 177–198.
Descola, P. (2013 [2005]). Beyond nature and culture. Translated from French (2005) by J. Lloyd. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Di Paola, M. (2013). Climate change and moral corruption. Symposium: A changing moral climate. Philosophy and Public Issues (New Series), Special issue, 3(1), 55–67.
Doppelt, B. (2012). The power of sustainable thinking: How to create a positive future for the climate, the planet, your organization and your life. London: Earthscan.
Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Engelke, P., & Chiu, D. (2016). Climate Change and US National Security: Past, present, future. Washington, DC: Atlantic Council.
ETC Group. (2010, November). Geopiracy: The case against geoengineering (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/emerging-issues/etcgroup-geopiracy-2011-013-en.pdf
ETC Group/Biofuelwatch. (2017). The Big Bad Fix: The case against climate geoengineering. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/etc_bbf_mar2018_us_v1_web.pdf
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 735–755.
GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2010). Climate change: A coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts. GAO-10-903. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/320/310105.pdf
GAO (Government Accountability Office). (2011). Climate engineering: Technical status, future directions, and potential responses. GAO-11-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1171.pdf
Gardiner, S. (2011a). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, S. M. (2011b). Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A commentary on the values of the royal society report. Environmental Values, 20(2), 163–188.
Gardiner, S. M. (2013). Why geoengineering is not a ‘global public good’, and why it is ethically misleading to frame it as one. Climatic Change, 121(3), 513–525.
Gardiner, S. (2014). Why ‘global public good’ is a treacherous term, especially for geoengineering. Climatic Change, 123(2), 101–106.
Gardiner, S. M., & Fragnière, A. (2018). The tollgate principles for the governance of geoengineering: Moving beyond the Oxford principles to an ethically more robust approach. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21(2), 143–174.
Ginzky, H., Herrmann, F., Kartschall, K., Leujak, W., Lipsius, K., Mäder, C., et al. (2011). Geoengineering: Effective climate protection or megalomania? Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.
Goes, M., Tuana, N., & Keller, K. (2011). The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 719–744.
Goodell, J. (2010). How to cool the planet: Geoengineering and the audacious quest to fix Earth’s climate. Melbourne: Scribe.
Hale, E. (2012, May 16). Geoengineering experiment cancelled due to perceived conflict of interest. The Guardian. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled
Hamilton, C. (2011). Ethical anxieties about geoengineering. Paper presented to a conference of the Australian Academy of Science Canberra, 27 September. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from http://clivehamilton.com/ethical-anxieties-about-geoengineering/
Hamilton, C. (2013). Earthmasters: Playing God with the climate. Crow’s Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Hansson, A. (2014). Ambivalence in calculating the future: The case of re-engineering the world. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 11(2), 125–142.
Healey, P., & Rayner, S. (2015). Key findings from the Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG) project. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 25. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper25healeyraynerkeyfindings-1.pdf
Heyward, C., & Rayner, S. (2013). A curious asymmetry: Social science expertise and geoengineering. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 007. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper7heywardrayneracuriousasymmetry.pdf
Hordequin, M. (2012). Justice, recognition, and climate geoengineering. In C. J. Preston (Ed.), Engineering the climate: The ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Horton, J. B. (2015). The emergency framing of solar geoengineering: Time for a different approach. The Anthropocene Review, 2(2), 147–151.
Horton, J. B., Keith, D. W., & Honegger, M. (2016). Implications of the Paris agreement for carbon dioxide removal and solar geoengineering. Harvard Project on Climate Agreements viewpoint paper, July. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/160700_horton-keith-honegger_vp2.pdf
Hulme, M. (2011). Reducing the future to climate: A story of climate determinism and reductionism. Osiris, 26, 245–266.
Hulme, M. (2014). Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. In R. K. Pachauri & A. Reisinger (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2012). Meeting report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expert meeting on geoengineering (O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, C. Field, V. Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen, & M. Mastrandrea, Eds.). Potsdam: IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Geneva: IPCC.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013). Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. In Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014b). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. In Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bauer, Z. A., Goodman, S. C., Chapman, W. E., Cameron, M. A., et al. (2017). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule, 1(1), 108–121.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London and New York: Routledge.
Keith, D. W. (2013). A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Klein, N. (2015). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Melbourne: Penguin Books.
Krauss, W., Schäfer, M. S., & Von Storch, H. (2012). Introduction: Post-normal climate science. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 121–132.
Lagorio, J. J. (2007, November 10). U.N.’s Ban says global warming is “an emergency”. Reuters. Retrieved January 28, 2019, from https://www.reuters.com/article/environment-antarctica-un-ban-dc-idUSN0923477720071110
Lane, L., & Bickel, J. E. (2013). Solar Radiation Management: An evolving climate policy option. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Lane, L., Caldeira, K., Chatfield, R., & Langhoff, S. (2007). Workshop report on managing solar radiation. NASA Ames Research Centre & Carnegie Institute of Washington, Moffett Field, CA, 18–19 November. Hanover, MD: NASA. (NASA/CP-2007-214558).
Lempert, R. J., & Prosnitz, D. (2011). Governing geoengineering research: A political and technical vulnerability analysis of potential near-term options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Lenton, T. M. (2012). Arctic climate tipping points. Ambio, 41(1), 10–22.
Lenton, T. M. (2013). Can emergency geoengineering really prevent climate tipping points? Geoengineering our climate: Working paper and opinion article series. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://geoengineeringourclimate.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/can-emergency-geoengineering-really-prevent-climate-tipping-points-opinion-article/
Lin, A. C. (2013). Does geoengineering present a moral hazard? Ecology Law Quarterly, 40(3), 673–712.
Lynas, M. (2011). The god species: How the planet can survive the age of humans. London: Fourth Estate.
MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 440–455.
MacKerron, G. (2014). Costs and economics of geoengineering. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 013. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper13mackerroncostsandeconomicsofgeoengineering.pdf
MacMartin, D. G., Caldeira, K., & Keith, D. W. (2014). Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372(2031), 1–13.
Macnaghten, P., & Szerszynski, B. (2013). Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on Solar Radiation Management and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change, 23, 465–474.
Markusson, N., Ginn, F., Ghaleigh, N. S., & Scott, V. (2014). ‘In case of emergency press here’: Framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 5(2), 281–290.
McClellan, J., Keith, D., & Apt, J. (2012). Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 1–8.
McCusker, K. E., Battisti, D. S., & Bitz, C. M. (2012). The climate response to stratospheric sulfate injections and implications for addressing climate emergencies. Journal of Climate, 25(9), 3096–3116.
Morrow, D. R. (2014). Why geoengineering is a public good, even if it is bad. Climatic Change, 123(2), 95–100.
National Research Council (NRC). (2015a). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool Earth. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council (NRC). (2015b). Climate intervention: Summary report. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R. (2012). Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147.
Nurse, P. (2011, September 8). I hope we never need geoengineering, but we must research it. The Guardian. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/08/geoengineering-research-royal-society
Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Preston, C. J. (Ed.). (2012). Engineering the climate: The ethics of Solar Radiation Management. Plymouth, UK and Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Preston, C. (Ed.). (2016). Climate justice and geoengineering ethics and policy in the atmospheric anthropocene. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Rayner, S. (2014). To know or not to know? A note on ignorance as a rhetorical resource in geoengineering debates. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 010. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper10raynertoknowornottoknow-1.pdf
Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., & Savulescu, J. (2013). The Oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512.
Ricke, K., Morgan, M. G., Apt, J., Victor, D., & Steinbruner, J. (2008, May 5). Unilateral geoengineering: Non-technical briefing notes for a workshop at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf
Rickels, W., Klepper, G., Dovern, J., Betz, G., Brachatzek, N., Cacean, S., et al. (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 Earth Institute.
Royal Society. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. RS Policy document 10/09. London: Royal Society. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf
Scott, K. (2013). International law in the anthropocene: Responding to the geoengineering challenge. Michigan Journal of International Law, 34, 309–358.
Sillmann, J., Lenton, T. M., Levermann, A., Ott, K., Hulme, M., Benduhn, F., et al. (2015). Climate emergencies do not justify engineering the climate. Nature Climate Change, 5, 290–292.
Smith, W., & Wagner, G. (2018). Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 4001.
Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI). (2011). Solar Radiation Management: The governance of research. Issued by the Environmental Defense Fund, The Royal Society, and The World Academy of Sciences.
Steger, M. B. (2009). Globalisms: The great ideological struggle of the twenty-first century (3rd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stilgoe, J. (2015). Experiment earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering. Abingdon: Routledge.
Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468, 23–30.
Surprise, K. (2018). Preempting the second contradiction: Solar geoengineering as spatiotemporal fix. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(5), 1228–1244.
Szerszynski, B., & Galarraga, M. (2013). Geoengineering knowledge: Interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2817–2824.
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). (2015). Adoption of the Paris agreement. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. Conference of the Parties, Paris, 12 December.
US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology (USHCST). (2010). Engineering the climate: Research needs and strategies for international coordination. Report by Bart Gordon.
Van Hemert, M. (2017). Speculative promise as a driver in climate engineering research: The case of Paul Crutzen’s back-of-the-envelope calculation on solar dimming with sulfate aerosols. Futures, 92, 80–89.
Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Virgoe, J. (2009). International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic Change, 95, 103–119.
Wegner, G., & Pascual, U. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis in the context of ecosystem services for human well-being: A multidisciplinary critique. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 492–504.
Whiteside, K. H. (2006). Precautionary politics: Principle and practice in confronting environmental risk. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wong, P.-H. (2015). Confucian environmental ethics, climate engineering, and the “playing god” argument. Zygon, 50(1), 28–41.
Wood, G. D. (2014). Tambora: The eruption that changed the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
World Bank. (2012). Inclusive green growth: The pathway to sustainable development. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.
Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning. Global Environmental Change, 2(June), 111–127.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baskin, J. (2019). Knowledge-Power-Values. In: Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17358-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17359-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)