Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature pp 75–121Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Re-emergence of Solar Geoengineering

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 747 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter charts the re-emergence of solar geoengineering (SGE) into mainstream consideration as a policy option from the mid-2000s, linking this to growing concerns about climate change. The institutional assessments of SGE are analysed in depth. The most common rationales that accompanied SGE’s revival are traced, and the various ways in which it is framed, understood and imagined today are analysed. This analysis shows how geoengineering has been unable to be normalised as a respectable third leg of climate policy. It is researched and imagined but it lacks legitimacy and traction.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here I limit myself to the ‘developed world’ since it is there, mainly in the United States and to a lesser extent the UK, that the idea of geoengineering re-emerges.

  2. 2.

    His father President George Bush Snr. had spoken along similar lines at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 when he said “the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation” (cited in Singer 2002: 2).

  3. 3.

    It is symptomatic of this period of market globalism that a leading billionaire airline entrepreneur and celebrity, Richard Branson, is selected to give a keynote address on climate change to the UN General Assembly. In it he calls for an “Environmental War Room” to be established and for mankind to “regulate the Earth’s temperature” (Branson 2008: n.p.).

  4. 4.

    This, in effect, converted a range of existing environmental concerns—such as extinction, biodiversity, toxicity and waste—into second-order environmental issues. See for example Crist (2007), who examines the implications of this.

  5. 5.

    We have already encountered Lowell Wood in the previous Chapter as a close colleague of Edward Teller, as a co-author of the largely ignored geoengineering chapter in the 1992 NAS study on climate change, and as one of the advisors in the unsuccessful attempt by George W. Bush’s climate advisors to put geoengineering on the policy agenda.

  6. 6.

    Wood’s argument, in his and his co-author’s words, is: “… if you’re inclined to subscribe to the Rio Framework Convention’s directive that mitigation of global warming should be effected in the ‘lowest possible cost’ manner—whether or not you believe that the Earth is indeed warming significantly above-and beyond natural rates, and whether or not you believe that human activities are largely responsible for such warming, and whether or not you believe that problems likely to have significant impacts only a century hence should be addressed with current technological ways-&-means rather than be deferred for obviating with more advanced means—then you will necessarily prefer active technical management of radiation forcing of the Earth to administrative management of greenhouse gas inputs to the Earth’s atmosphere, for the practical reasons sketched in the foregoing” (Teller et al. 2002: 6, emphases in original).

  7. 7.

    Prior to lifting the taboo the last three views would barely have received a hearing! The third view was also unusual and suggested the pre-emptive use of solar geoengineering as part of a suite of policy interventions into climate. It is associated with Tom Wigley (2006), who also attended this workshop. The related proposal of experimenting in the atmosphere, starting small and then “cautiously” scaling up any intervention, was also voiced (Lane et al. 2007: 6). This is the argument most popular amongst SGE’s proponents today.

  8. 8.

    Not discussed is how the conception of the ‘temporary’ nature of any intervention might be reconciled with SGE being a long-term commitment. The ‘termination effect’ as it is now termed, is clearly outlined in the later ‘official’ literature (for example NRC 2015: 36) but was perhaps not fully acknowledged at the time.

  9. 9.

    A parallel study published by the NRC at the same time focused on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) geoengineering techniques.

  10. 10.

    It should be noted that the outline for the next IPCC Assessment Report (AR6), due in 2021, suggests even greater attention will be given to geoengineering. It will be one of only eight cross-cutting issues to be covered in all three Working Group reports.

  11. 11.

    Climatologist Yuri Izrael is a long-time enthusiast for solar geoengineering. A 2008 Russian report quotes him as saying “We must have different ‘weapons’ for fighting climate change and stabilizing the climate” and shows him to be a strong supporter of SGE as the “optimal and inexpensive” solution (Sinitsyna 2008). Izrael’s position appears to be an example of the entwining of science and politics. He was a disciple of Budyko and co-authored Global Climatic Catastrophes with him (1988 [1986]). In the aftermath of the end of communism he was a one of the leaders of the Russian Academy and apparently close to Vladimir Putin. He was a vice-chair of the IPCC but in the early 2000s seems to have focused on discrediting any suggestion that climate change had anthropogenic causes and discouraging the Russian government from ratifying Kyoto (Bolin 2007: 187–9).

  12. 12.

    AMEG’s website reveals the mood of despair amongst leading Arctic scientists. Undoubtedly heartfelt, the AMEG approach is socially and politically naïve, in the way it imagines a science-led climate policy.

  13. 13.

    I acknowledge Jim Fleming for drawing this illustration to my attention.

  14. 14.

    See for example Royal Society (2009: 23); Umweltbundesamt (Ginzky et al. 2011: 11); and Bipartisan Policy Center (2011: 25).

  15. 15.

    See for example Robock et al. (2009) which included guns, towers, balloons and aircraft as possible delivery mechanisms, and the illustration of the SPICE project in Macnaghten and Owen (2011).

References

  • AAS (Australian Academy of Science). (2015). The science of climate change. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group). (2014). Press release, 4 December. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://ameg.me/

  • Bala, G., & Gupta, A. (2018). India’s push for solar geoengineering. Nature, 557, 637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belter, C. W., & Seidel, D. J. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. WIREs Climate Change, 4(5), 417–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S., & Ivanova, M. (2008). Institutional fragmentation and normative compromise in global environmental governance: What prospects for re-embedding? In S. Bernstein & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Global liberalism and political order: Toward a new grand compromise? New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickel, J. E., & Lane, L. (2009). An analysis of climate engineering as a response to climate change. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Consensus Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 145–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Bolin, B. (2007). A history of the science and politics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, M. (2008). Censoring science: Inside the political attack on Dr. James Hansen and the truth of global warming. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • BPC. (2011). See Bipartisan Policy Center 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. (2008). Addressing climate change: Keynote address by Sir Richard Branson. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.un.org/ga/president/62/ThematicDebates/statements/RichardBransonSpeech.shtml

  • Bronson, D., Mooney, P., & Wetter, K. J. (2009). Retooling the planet? Climate chaos in the geoengineering age. A report prepared by ETC Group for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Stockholm: Swedish Society for Nature Conservation. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/retooling-planet-new-etc-group-report-geoengineering

  • Brovkin, V., Petoukhov, V., Claussen, M., Bauer, E., Archer, D., & Jaeger, C. (2009). Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Climatic Change, 92(3–4), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change, 23, 327–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budyko, M. I., Golitsyn, G. S., & Izrael, Y. A. (1988 [1986]). Global climatic catastrophes. Translated from Russian by V. G. Yanuta. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R., & Stirling, A. (2014). ‘Maintaining planetary systems’ or ‘concentrating global power?’ High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering. Global Environmental Change, 28, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, L., Gao, C.-C., & Zhao, L.-Y. (2015). Geoengineering: Basic science and ongoing research efforts in China. Advances in Climate Change Research, 6(3–4), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. L. (2007, July 21). A sunshade for the planet: If we can’t stop global warming, as a last resort, researchers are devising ways to cool the planet by shading it from the sun. New Scientist, pp. 42–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoff, P., & Eckersley, R. (2013). Globalization & the environment. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicerone, R. J. (2006). Geoengineering: Encouraging research and overseeing implementation. Climatic Change, 77, 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2015). Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Climatic Change, 130(3), 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crist, E. (2007). Beyond the climate crisis: A critique of climate change discourse. Telos, 141(Winter), 29–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77(3–4), 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalby, S. (2009). Security and environmental change. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, L. (2007, September). Climate change: A geoengineering fix? Aerospace America, 45, 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibley, B., & Neilson, B. (2010). Climate crisis and the actuarial imaginary: The war on global warming. New Formations, 69(Spring), 144–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, E. (2010, September 3). A changed climate skeptic? Foreign Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edney, K., & Symons, J. (2014). China and the blunt temptations of geoengineering: The role of solar radiation management in China’s strategic response to climate change. The Pacific Review, 27(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization (Special issue: ‘International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics’), 52(4), 887–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Gingrich, N. (2008, June 3). Stop the green pig: Defeat the Boxer-Warner-Lieberman green pork bill capping American jobs and trading America’s future. Human Events. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://humanevents.com/2008/06/03/stop-the-green-pig-defeat-the-boxerwarnerlieberman-green-pork-bill-capping-american-jobs-and-trading-americas-future/

  • Ginzky, H., Herrmann, F., Kartschall, K., Leujak, W., Lipsius, K., Mäder, C., et al. (2011). Geoengineering: Effective climate protection or megalomania? Dessau-Roßlau: Umweltbundesamt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore, A. (2004). The climate emergency. In J. R. Lyons, H. S. Kaplan, F. Strebeigh, & K. E. Campbell (Eds.), Red, white, blue, and green: Politics and the environment in the 2004 election. New Haven, CT: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haass, R. (2018, October 7). Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://twitter.com/RichardHaass/status/1049107983618252800

  • Howell, K. (2010, February 5). Climate: Scientists call for interagency geoengineering research program. Environment and Energy Daily.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2008). Geographical work at the boundaries of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33(1), 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2014). Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huttunen, S., & Hilden, M. (2014). Framing the controversial: Geoengineering in academic literature. Science Communication, 36(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (1995a). Second Assessment Climate Change 1995, synthesis report. Geneva: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (1995c). Second Assessment Report, summary for policymakers. Geneva: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis report. In R. T. Watson & The Core Writing Team (Eds.), A contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007a). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007d). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.). IPCC Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Geneva: IPCC

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013a). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013b). Summary for policymakers. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013d). Government and expert comments on draft Working Group 2 report, Chapter 19. Spreadsheet ‘WGIIAR5_SODCh19_annotation.pdf’ previously available from IPCC website. Download available from the author.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2013e). Expert review comments on draft Working Group 3 first order draft report. Spreadsheet available in pdf format from IPCC website as ‘Expert Review Comments on the IPCC WGIII AR5 First Order Draft—Chapter X.pdf’. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/drafts/ipcc_wg3_ar5_sod_comments_all-report.pdf

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. In Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2014c). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izrael, Y. A., Zakharov, V. M., Petrov, N. N., Ryaboshapko, A. G., Ivanov, V. N., Savchenko, A. V., et al. (2009). Field experiment on studying solar radiation passing through aerosol layers. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 34, 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, B. (2011, December 5). Gingrich on climate change. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.factcheck.org/2011/12/gingrich-on-climate-change/

  • Keith, D. W. (2013). A case for climate engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, D. W. (2015). Climate engineering, no longer on the fringe. Interview 18 February. Available at Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences website. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2015/02/climate-engineering-no-longer-on-fringe

  • Keith, D. W., Parson, E., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Research on global sun block needed now. Nature, 463, 426–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, M. (2005). Science in culture: Inventing an icon. Nature, 437(7063), 1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiehl, J. T. (2006). Geoengineering climate change: Treating the symptom over the cause? Climatic Change, 77(3), 227–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintisch, E. (2010). Hack the planet: Science’s best hope—Or worst nightmare—For averting climate catastrophe. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, A. (2003, December 4). Russia’s climate tussle spins on. BBC News. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3288683.stm

  • Lane, L., & Bickel, J. E. (2013). Solar radiation management: An evolving climate policy option. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2009). Superfreakonomics. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liverman, D. M. (2009). Conventions of climate change: Constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere. Journal of Historical Geography, 35, 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. (2008). A geophysiologist’s thoughts on geoengineering. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366(1882), 3883–3890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. (2009). The vanishing face of Gaia: A final warning. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., & Keith, D. W. (2018). Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376, 20160454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., & Owen, R. (2011). Environmental science: Good governance for geoengineering. Nature, 479(7373), 291–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusson, N. (2013). Tensions in framings of geoengineering: Constitutive diversity and ambivalence. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series: 003.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. C., Chen, Y., Cui, X. F., Yuan, W. P., Dong, W. J., Gao, Y., et al. (2016). Will China be the first to initiate climate engineering? Earth’s Future, 4(12), 588–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, O. (2007). Climate change: Is this what it takes to save the world? Nature, 447(7141), 132–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2003). Critical issues in weather modification research. Washington, DC: Committee on the Status and Future Directions in U.S Weather Modification Research and Operations, National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool Earth. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerlich, B., & Jaspal, R. (2012). Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(2), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (1994). Managing the global commons: The economics of climate change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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, 372(2031), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the Ivory Tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oschlies, A., & Klepper, G. (2017). Research for assessment, not deployment, of climate engineering: The German Research Foundation’s Priority Program SPP 1689. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 128–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierrehumbert, R. (2015, February 10). Climate hacking is barking mad. Slate. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.html

  • Porter, K. E., & Hulme, M. (2013). The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: A frame analysis. The Geographical Journal, 179(4), 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricke, K., Morgan, M. G., Apt, J., Victor, D., & Steinbruner, J. (2008). Unilateral geoengineering: Non-technical briefing notes for a workshop at the Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, May 5, 2008. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robine, J.-M., Cheung, S. L., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C., Michel, J. P., et al. (2008). Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 331(2), 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock, A. (2014, May 5). A case against climate engineering. Huffington Post. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/a-case-against-climate-engineering_b_5264200.html

  • Robock, A., Marquardt, A. B., Kravitz, B., & Stenchikov, G. (2009). Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(19), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Schelling, T. C. (1996). The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Climatic Change, 33(3), 303–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier, Q. (2003). Climate change: The long road from Kyoto. Nature, 426(6968), 756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, G. (2006, June 28). Geo-engineering in vogue. RealClimate. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/geo-engineering-in-vogue/

  • Schnare, D. W. (2007). A framework to prevent the catastrophic effects of global warming using solar radiation management (geo-engineering). Supplement to Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S. (2001). Earth systems engineering and management. Nature, 409(6818), 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrickel, I. (2014). Images of feasibility: On the viscourse of climate engineering. In B. Schneider & T. Nocke (Eds.), Image politics of climate change: Visualizations, imaginations, documentations. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P., & Randall, D. (2003). An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States national security. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3834225 or http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/v1003/readings/Pentagon.pdf

  • Shaw, C., & Nerlich, B. (2015). Metaphor as a mechanism of global climate change governance: A study of international policies, 1992–2012. Ecological Economics, 109, 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikka, T. (2012). A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Discourse Studies, 9, 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2002). One World: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinitsyna, T. (2008, June 25). Ways to tame the climate. Opinion piece in Sputnik News. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20080625/112056346.html

  • Stilgoe, J. (2015). Experiment Earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teller, E. (1997, October 17). Sunscreen for planet earth. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://www.hoover.org/research/sunscreen-planet-earth-0

  • Teller, E., Hyde, R., & Wood, L. (2002). Active climate stabilization: Practical physics-based approaches to prevention of climate change. National Academy of Engineering Symposium, Washington, DC, April 23–24. Preprint UCRL-JC-148012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall Centre Cambridge-MIT Institute Symposium. (2004). Macro-engineering options for climate change management and mitigation.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, December 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology (USHCST). (2009). Hearing: Geoengineering: Parts I, II and III, assessing the implications of large scale climate intervention (pp. 111–162, 111–175, and 111–188). Washington, DC: US House of Representatives. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53007/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg53007.pdf

  • 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. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from https://science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/10-29%20Chairman%20Gordon%20Climate%20Engineering%20report%20-%20FINAL.pdf

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, D. G. (2011). Global warming gridlock: Creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G., & Weitzman, M. L. (2015). Climate shock. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • White House. (2001). President Bush discusses global climate change. Press Release, June 11. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html

  • Wigley, T. M. L. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science, 314, 452–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Jeremy Baskin

Authors
  1. Jeremy Baskin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Baskin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Baskin, J. (2019). The Re-emergence of Solar Geoengineering. In: Geoengineering, the Anthropocene and the End of Nature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17359-3_3

  • 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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation