Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Sociology ((BRIEFSSOCY))

  • 443 Accesses

Abstract

This introduction provides preliminary remarks and clarifications on structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise explanations of the theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book including feminist contextual empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and technofeminism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The reader might observe that I use climate engineering and geoengineering interchangeably throughout the text. This choice was made in line with how interchangeably these two terms are in the political, scientific, media and policy realms.

References

  • Anderson, E. (1995a). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (1995b). Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics, 23(2), 27–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014a). The last chance to save the planet? An analysis of the geoengineering advocacy discourse in the public sphere. Environmental Humanities, 3, 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014b). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschauer, A. B. (1999). Tinkering with technological skill: An examination of the gendered uses of technologies. Computers and Composition, 16, 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pint, T. (Eds.). (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coser, L. (1977). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crasnow, S. (2009). Is standpoint theory a resource for feminist epistemology? An introduction. Hypatia, 24(4), 189–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. (2006). Feminist methodologies and epistemologies. In C. D. Bryant & D. L. Peck (Eds.), Handbook of 21st century sociology (pp. 36–42). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fountain, H. (2015a, February 10). Panel urges research on geoengineering as a tool against climate change. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  • Fountain, H. (2015b). Panel urges research on geoengineering as a tool against climate change. New York Times, 10 Feb 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/science/panel-urges-more-research-on-geoengineering-as-a-tool-against-climate-change.html?_r=0. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.

  • Gaard, G. (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaard, G. (1997). Toward a Queer Ecofeminism. Hypatia, 12(1), 114–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goes, M., Tuana, N., & Keller, K. (2011). The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Climatic Change, 109(3–4), 719–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1987). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornel University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (Ed.). (1993). The ‘racial’ economy of Science: Towards a democratic future. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, S. H. (2006). Disciplinary pluralism for science studies. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 215–230). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourany, J. (2009). The place of standpoint theory in feminist science studies. Hypatia, 24(4), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor-network theory and after. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994a). In search of feminist epistemology. Monist, 77, 472–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1994b). The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge (pp. 135–157). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2001a). The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2001b). Can there be a feminist science? In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Giesman, H. Öztürk, & M. Wayne (Eds.), Women, science, and technology (pp. 216–222). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997a). Feminist epistemology as local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997b). Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E., & Lennon, K. (1997c). Feminist epistemology as local epistemology. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 71, 19–35+37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, et al. (2006a). Introduction: The pluralist stance. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. vi–xxix). Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H., Kellert, S. H., & Waters, C. K. (2006b). Scientific pluralism. Minnesota studies on the philosophy of science (Vol. XIX). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luderer, G., et al. (2014). The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: Results from the EMF27 scenarios. Climatic change, 123(3-4), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, D. (2015, March 14). Where’s the justice in geoengineering. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/mar/14/wheres-the-justice-in-geoengineering. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.

  • Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature - Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: The Zed Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naples, N., & Gurr, B. (2013). Feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Approaches to understanding the social world. In S. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 14–41). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA. (2016, July 14). Stratospheric aerosol and gas experimentation III-ISS (SAGE III-ISS). http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1004.html. Accessed 22 Sept 2016.

  • NRC. (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool the earth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panwar, N. L., et al. (2011). Role of renewable energy sources in environmental protection: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(3), 1513–1524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery over nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, E. (2007). Feminist epistemologies and women’s Lives. In L. M. Alcoff & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to feminist philosophy (pp. 235–253). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, E., & Alcoff, L. (1993). Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinby, L. (1990). Ecofeminism and the politics of resistance. In I. Diamond & G. Orenstein (Eds.), Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Berkeley Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren21. (2017). Renewables: Global status report. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century. Available at: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17-8399_GSR_2017_Full_Report_0621_Opt.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018.

  • Robock, A. (2008a). 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64(2), 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, A. (2008b). Whither geoengineering? SCIENCE-NEW YORK THEN WASHINGTON, 320(5880), 1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostom, E. (2015, February 10). Geoengineering: The bad idea we need to stop climate change. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-10/geoengineering-the-bad-idea-we-need-to-stop-climate-change. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.

  • Scientific American. (2008). The hidden dangers of geoengineering. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-hidden-dangers-of-geoengineering/. Accessed 2 Jan 2017.

  • Seymour, J. (2013). Feminist standpoint epistemology – The role of women in climate change policy-making: Are some people’s experiences more valuable than others’ as a foundation for knowledge and generating social change? Pragmatism Tomorrow, 1(3), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V., & Mies, M. (2014). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikka, T. (2013). An analysis of the connection between climate change, technological solutions and potential disaster management: The contribution of geoengineering research. In W. Filho (Ed.), Climate change and disaster risk management (pp. 535–551). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smelik, A. M., & Lykke, N. (Eds.). (2010). Bits of life: Feminism at the intersections of media, bioscience, and technology. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder-Beattie, A. (2015, May 15). Geoengineering is fast and cheap, but not the key to stopping climate change. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/15/geoengineering-climate-change-greenhouse-gases. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.

  • The Royal Society. (2009, September). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London: Royal Society of London. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/. Accessed 17 Sept 2016.

  • Tuana, N. (2013). Gendering climate knowledge for justice: Catalyzing a new research agenda. In M. Alston & K. Whittenbury (Eds.), Research, action and policy: Addressing the gendered impacts of climate change (pp. 17–31). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Twidell, J., & Weir, T. (2015). Renewable energy resources. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Venkataraman, B. (2016, January 14). We have no way to predict the unintended consequences of geoengineering. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/geoengineering-unintended-consequences-blocking-sun-415449. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

  • Vidal, J. (2012a). Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering. The Guardian, 6 February 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering. Accessed 13 Feb 2017.

  • Vidal, J. (2012b, February 6) Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.

  • Wajcman, J. (2004). Technofeminism. Cambridge/Maiden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (2007). From women and technology to gendered technoscience. Information, Community and Society, 10(3), 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wajcman, J. (2009). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, K. J. (1996). Ecological feminist philosophies: An overview of the issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Energy Council. (2016). World Energy Resources. World Energy Council. https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Media and Cultural Studies, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Tina Sikka

Authors
  1. Tina Sikka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sikka, T. (2019). Introduction. In: Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice. SpringerBriefs in Sociology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01147-5_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01146-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01147-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation