Climate Engineering: Responsible Innovation or Reckless Folly?

Keynote Address to RRI Conference 2015
  • Steve RaynerEmail author


Responsible innovation has been a longstanding concern for the social sciences: dating back at least as far as the 1980s, since when a succession of technologies have been introduced with grandiose claims of life-changing benefits, only to founder in the face of under-performance and public scepticism. This paper asks whether the emerging and already controversial field of climate geoengineering will prove to be yet another chapter in this litany or whether it represents an opportunity to develop a framework for responsible innovation according to a model of guiding societal principles and technology-specific protocols. It concludes by noting that geoengineering is currently at a research impasse as technologists await a green light from social scientists before proceeding with research, while social scientists are limited to commenting on highly speculative ideas about how geoengineering might turn out in practice. Under these conditions, the values underlying debates about novel technology are unusually transparent.


  1. Armeni, Chiara, and Catherine Redgwell. 2015a. International legal and regulatory issues of climate geoengineering governance: Rethinking the approach. Oxford: CGG Working Paper no. 21.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2015b. Geoengineering under national law: A case study of the United Kingdom. Oxford: CGG Working Paper no. 23.Google Scholar
  3. Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David H. Guston. 2008. 38 Anticipatory Governance of Nanotechnoiogy: Foresight, Engagement, and Integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, ed. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, Scott. 2008. The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environmental and Resource Economics 39 (1): 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeson, Mark. 2010. The coming of environmental authoritarianism. Environmental Politics 19 (2): 276–294.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, Rose. 2014. Climates of suspicion:‘chemtrail’conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering. The Geographical Journal: 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  8. Crutzen, Paul J. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415 (6867): 23–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2006. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77 (3): 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming, James Roger. 2010. Fixing the sky: The checkered history of weather and climate control. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, Batya. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3 (6): 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guston, David H., and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24 (1): 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Healey, Peter, and Steve Rayner. 1995. Key findings from the climate geoengineering governance project. Oxford: CGG Working Paper no. 25.Google Scholar
  14. Hubert, Anna-Maria, and David Reinweich. 2015. An exploration of a code of conduct for responsible scientific research involving geoengineering. Potsdam: IASS and Oxford: InSIS.Google Scholar
  15. Hulme, Mike. 2014. Can science fix climate change?: A case against climate engineering. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Keith, David. 2013. A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. MacKerron, Gordon. 2014. Costs and economics of geoengineering. Oxford: CGG Working Paper no. 13.Google Scholar
  18. Nature. 2012. Editorial: A charter for geoengineering. Nature 485: 415.Google Scholar
  19. Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible Innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Rayner, Steve. 1986. Management of radiation hazards in hospitals: Plural rationalities in a single institution. Social Studies of Science 16: 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 2004. The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Industry and Higher Education 18: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 2010. ‘The Geoengineering Paradox’. The Geoengineering Quarterly. Online newsletter, 20 March. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  23. Rayner, Steve, and Mark Caine, eds. 2015. The hartwell approach to climate policy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Rayner, Steve, Clare Heyward, Tim Kruger, Nick Pidgeon, Catherine Redgwell, and Julian Savulescu. 2013. The Oxford principles. Climatic Change 121 (3): 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rip, Arie, Johan Schot, and Thomas J. Misa. 1995. Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment, 1–12.Google Scholar
  26. Shearman, David, and Joseph Wayne Smith. 2007. The climate change challenge and the failure of democracy. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  27. Shepherd, John, Ken Caldeira, Joanna Haigh, David Keith, Brian Launder, Georgina Mace, Gordon MacKerron, John Pyle, Steve Rayner, Catherine Redgwell, and Andew Watson. 2009. Geoengineering the climate: Science. governance and uncertainty. The Royal Society: London.Google Scholar
  28. UNEP. 2012. The Emissions Gap Report 2012. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi: 3.Google Scholar
  29. US NRC. 2015a. Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool the earth. Report of the national research council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2015b. Climate intervention: Carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. Report of the national research council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. US PSAC. 1965. Restoring the health of our environment: Report of the environmental pollution panel. President’s science advisory committee. Washington, DC: The White House.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, M. 2012. Expert reaction to decision not to launch the 1 km balloon as part of the SPICE geoengineering research project. Science Media Centre. Accessed 7 Feb 2017.
  33. Wilsdon, James, and Rebecca Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  34. Wong, Pak-Hang. 2013. The public and geoengineering decision-making. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology 17 (3): 350–367.Google Scholar
  35. Zürn, Michael, and Stefan Schäfer. 2013. The paradox of climate engineering. Global Policy 4 (3): 266–277.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Science, Innovation and SocietyOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations