An Analysis of the Connection Between Climate Change, Technological Solutions and Potential Disaster Management: The Contribution of Geoengineering Research

Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)


In this article, the author uses a critical political economy approach to provide a basic topology of the current state of geoengineering research, funding and testing. The central argument is that the material and discursive monopolisation of geoengineering research and discussion by elite groups—political, economic and scientific-technological—has led to the marginalisation of the public from this debate and has presented a distorted view of its (geoengineering’s) need. Its connection to the main theme of this conference is located in the very clear nexus between climate change, the potentially disastrous outcomes of increased global warming and an examination of the potentially equally dangerous consequences of technologically intensive solutions (like geoengineering) that do not address but disregard the core problem: overconsumption based a resource-extractive and energy-intensive economic system. This piece begins with a brief introduction to geoengineering technologies. I then outline the critical political economy approach which is, at its core, a historically and socially reflexive method that focuses on unpacking the “production and reproduction of…structures” (Mosco 1996, 29) of privilege, followed by a brief justification of why it is pertinent in this context. Following this, the author delivers a critical snapshot of some of the most striking, and simultaneously troubling, geoengineering research currently taking place worldwide. The paper ends with a call for the public to get aggressively involved in learning about geoengineering and engaging in critically informed geoengineering activism, both online and offline.


Political economy Geoengineering Climate change Critical analysis Public 


  1. American geophysical union (2011) AGU position statement.
  2. American meteorological association (2009) Geoengineering the climate system: a policy statement of the American Meteorological Society (20 July 2009).
  3. Bagdikian BH (2005) The endless chain. In: Sevigny E (ed) Introduction to Communication. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, pp 173–184Google Scholar
  4. Blackstock J, Suarez P, Aalst M (2010) Towards a people-centered framework for geoengineering governance: a human-centered approach. Geoengineering Q 2(4):115–127Google Scholar
  5. Climate institute (2010) About us.
  6. Comor E (1994) Introduction. In: Comor E (ed) The global political economy of communication: hegemony, telecommunication and the information economy. St. Martin’s, New York, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  7. Feenberg A (1995) Alternative Modernity. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Garnham N (2009) Contribution to a political economy of mass-communication. In: Durham GI, Kellner M (eds) Media and cultural studies: keyworks. Blackwell, London, pp 201–229Google Scholar
  9. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2010) Climate change: preliminary observations on geoengineering science, federal efforts, and governance issues, Testimony before the committee on science and technology, House of representatives.
  10. Hackett R (2000) Taking back the media: notes on the potential for a communicative democracy movement. Stud Political Econ 63:61–86Google Scholar
  11. Integrated assessment of geoengineering proposals (2011) About IAGP.
  12. Izrael YA, Zakharov VM, Petrov NN, Ryaboshapko AG, Ivanov VN, Savechenko AV, Andreev YV, Puzov A, Danelyan BG, Kulyapin VP (2009a) Field experiment on studying solar radiation passing through aerosol layers. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 34(5):265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Izrael YA, Ryaboshapko AG, Petrov NN (2009b) Comparative analysis of geo-engineering approaches to climate stabilization. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 34(6):335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kintisch E (2010a) Bill Gates funding geoengineering research. ScienceInsider.
  15. Kintisch E (2010b) National academy report calls for geoengineering research. ScienceInsider.
  16. Lipschutz R (2010) Political economy, capitalism, and popular culture. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  17. MacCracken MC (2010) Beyond mitigation: potential options for counter-balancing the climatic and environmental consequences of the rising concentration of greenhouse gases. Background paper to the 2010 world development report, pp 1–45Google Scholar
  18. McChesney RW (2000) The political economy of communication and the future of the field. Media Cult Soc 22(1):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McChesney RW, Schiller D (2003) The political economy of international communications: foundations for the emerging global debate about media ownership and regulation. Technology, business and society programme paper, Vol 11. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Mosco V (1996) The political economy of communication. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Novim Group (2009) Climate engineering responses to climate emergencies.
  22. Revkin AC (2009) Branson on the power of biofuels and elders New York Times.
  23. Silverstone R (1999) Why study the media? Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Smythe DW (2009) On the audience commodity and its work. In: Meenakshi GD, Kellner DM (eds) Media and cultural studies: keyworks. Blackwell, London, pp 230–256Google Scholar
  25. The Carbon War Room (2011)
  26. The Climate Response Fund (2010b) The asilomar conference: recommendations on principles into climate engineering techniques.
  27. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance an uncertainty. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Vance E (2010) Geoengineering divides scientists Environmental Research Web.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of CommunicationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations