Stratospheric imperialism: Liberalism, (eco)modernization, and ideologies of solar geoengineering research

Abstract

Once a fringe notion, solar geoengineering via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is gaining traction as a climate management tactic within mainstream institutions and factions of the climate justice movement. Cautious considerations of SAI are driven by the layered realities of climate urgency, political inaction, and the potential for climate impacts to harm the most vulnerable. This narrative is difficult to dispute, yet it originates from leading centers of SAI research—particularly the Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program (HSGRP)—that construct the “necessity” of research, experimentation, and potential deployment under ideological pretenses aimed at maintaining the hegemony of liberal-capitalism. Hence, advanced under the auspices of HSGRP, SAI would constitute a form of imperialism rather than a tool for climate justice. I link SAI to theories of capitalist imperialism, and situate HSGRP within Harvard’s legacy shaping U.S. imperialism and position as a nodal point of liberal-capitalist power. In this context, I identify three dominant ideologies undergirding SAI research at Harvard—ecomodernism, Realist International Relations theory, and Keynesianism—that construct a specific narrative whereby established climate solutions (liberal-capitalist ecomodernism) are frustrated by “anarchical” international politics, leaving the poor vulnerable to near-term climate impacts. SAI is thus positioned as a mechanism capable of buying time for market-driven policy and reducing near-term climate risk. HSGRP directly counter poses this approach to radical elements of the climate justice movement that address capitalism as the root cause of both climate change and global poverty.

The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research

“…This well-meaning approach does not appear to recognize the structural power imbalances invoked in this stance or the colonial legacies of paternalistic, technocratic humanitarianism flowing from the Global North to the Global South (Escobar, 2011; McCarthy, 2009; Mitchell, 2002). Privileged scientists are justifying their research by making claims that they might be able to fix injustices for the global poor in a way that does nothing to address the root causes of either climate vulnerability or global inequality, amounting to a form of ‘expert imperialism’ (see Flegal & Gupta, 2018; Hourdequin, 2018; McLaren, 2018; Surprise, 2019).…”

“…(FICER, 2019). In addition to Gates, Harvard's research programme is supported by an array of other technology billionaires, hedge fund managers and boutique foundations that serve as philanthropic arms of wealthy individuals (Surprise, 2019). For example, the Open Philanthropy Project, founded by Cari Tuna, billionaire Dustin Moskovitz (a co-founder of Facebook) and Holden Karnofsky (formerly of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates), is another major supporter of SAI research at Harvard and around the world.…”

“…Major funders of solar geoengineering research include, for example, Bill Gates, whose Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER) authorizes Harvard University Professor David Keith and Ken Caldeira (of the Carnegie Institution for Science) to distribute millions of dollars to solar geoengineering researchers (FICER, 2019). In addition to Gates, Harvard's research programme is supported by an array of other technology billionaires, hedge fund managers and boutique foundations that serve as philanthropic arms of wealthy individuals (Surprise, 2019). For example, the Open Philanthropy Project, founded by Cari Tuna, billionaire Dustin Moskovitz (a co-founder of Facebook) and Holden Karnofsky (formerly of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates), is another major supporter of SAI research at Harvard and around the world.…”

Anticipatory governance of solar geoengineering: conflicting visions of the future and their links to governance proposals

“…A fourth vision of the future is one where solar geoengineering is seen as not only unnecessary, but also as potentially highly risky and dangerous in tackling a climate crisis. Here the concern is that research into solar geoengineering will delay or derail the necessary low carbon transformations and exacerbate existing injustices, while undermining the collective will to tackle the climate challenge [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. This perspective is thus closely aligned with 3.3 above on many points, even as it stresses that democratic governance of solar geoengineering may be inherently unrealizable and it is hubris to consider it [ 74 , 75 , 76 ].…”

Cracking the code: how discursive structures shape climate engineering research governance

“…The purpose of analysing a given discourse is to identify the strategies employed by actors to communicate their beliefs or advance their interests on a certain issue (Kerchner and Schneider 2006). Most agency-derived interventions discuss how framing (Scholte et al 2013, Huttunen and Hildén 2013, Markusson 2013, Porter and Hulme 2013, Huttunen et al 2014, Corner and Pidgeon 2015, Raimi et al 2019, metaphors (Nerlich and Jaspal 2012) and argumentative strategies (Sikka 2012, Surprise 2019 shape CE governance discourse.…”