Organising the unthinkable in times of crises: Will climate engineering become the weapon of last resort in the Anthropocene?

Abstract

In this article, we ask how the approaches of climate engineering – mostly highly technological approaches to address the challenge of global climate change – might be organised in the age of the Anthropocene. We understand the term ‘Anthropocene’ to be characterised by crisis, on one hand, and by promise, on the other. In particular, we aim to raise doubts on the dominant perspective on the organisation of climate engineering, which assumes these approaches to be regulated through legalistic means. Drawing an analogy to the early development stages of nuclear weapons, we point out that, instead of following a legalistic rationale, climate engineering organisation might pursue a logic of technical feasibility, political acceptance and bureaucratic momentum.

Organizing in the Anthropocene

“…Although most proponents insist these are measures of last resort (Clark, 2014), the emphasis on geoengineering also provides an excuse for the lack of action in reducing GHG emissions. Indeed, as Lederer and Kreuter (2018) outline in this Special Issue, there are serious doubts about humanity's collective ability to legally regulate geoengineering initiatives in an era of growing ecological crisis (see also Szerszynski et al, 2013). Geoengineering proposals thus provide a dramatic example of the faith of corporate and political elites in the power of markets and technology in organizing the Anthropocene.…”

Unveiling assumptions through interdisciplinary scrutiny: Observations from the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689)

“…On the one hand, we could assume that an (collective) actor is deciding on CE implementation based on economically rational and wellinformed cost-benefit calculations. On the other hand, we could assume that issues of political feasibility, acceptability, and momentum might feed into such a development (Lederer and Kreuter 2018). The respective scenarios and corresponding modeling results are, to some degree, shaped by assumptions of such societal factors.…”

Max Weber in the tropics: How global climate politics facilitates the bureaucratization of forestry in Indonesia

“…1997, p. 4) and in cases in which one wants to explain strategies leading to major policy change (Khong 1992; Cornelissen et al . 2011, p. 10; Lederer & Kreuter 2018). Furthermore, every theoretical concept or categorization has been derived from geographically and historically contingent circumstances, and must be carefully applied when being used under other geographical or temporal conditions (see, for example, the discussion on contingent generalization as opposed to nomothetic laws in Pouliot 2007, p. 379).…”