The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

Abstract

Research into solar geoengineering, far from being societally neutral, is already highly intertwined with its emerging politics. This review outlines ways in which research conditions or constructs solar geoengineering in diverse ways, including the forms of possible material technologies of solar geoengineering; the criteria and targets for their assessment; the scenarios in which they might be deployed; the publics which may support or oppose them; their political implications for other climate responses, and the international relations, governance mechanisms, and configurations of power that are presumed in order to regulate them. The review also examines proposals for governance of research, including suggested frameworks, principles, procedures, and institutions. It critically assesses these proposals, revealing their limitations given the context of the conditioning effects of current research. The review particularly highlights problems of the reproduction of Northern norms, instrumental approaches to public engagement, a weak embrace of precaution, and a persistent—but questionable—separation of research from deployment. It details complexities inherent in effective research governance which contribute to making the pursuit of solar geoengineering risky, controversial, and ethically contentious. In conclusion, it suggests a case for an explicit, reflexive research governance regime developed with international participation. It suggests that such a regime should encompass modeling and social science, as well as field experimentation, and must address not only technical and environmental, but also the emergent social and political, implications of research. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Southeast Asian expert perceptions of solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal approaches: caution, ambivalence, risk precaution, and research directions

“…But there is broad support for modeling their possible impacts, especially from four respondents, echoing earlier calls from, for instance, Kravitz and MacMartin (2020). The respondents' cautious support of SRM is evident in the salience of risk governance and the appreciation of uncertainties amongst this cohort, which is also consistent with other studies (e.g., Dai et al 2021, McLaren andCorry 2021). As novel technologies that, on the one hand, hold immense promise and, on the other hand, warn of substantial danger, SRM requires an emphasis on the possibility of nasty surprises and building a margin of safety (Randall 2011): areas of concern that the respondents voiced out in their responses.…”

“…The survey also missed considering some emergent themes son the role of Southeast Asian-produced knowledge on SRM and CDR. Of particular interest for future research, thus, can include a study about the dominance of North American, European, and Australian geoengineering researchers, which led to an imbalance tantamount to neocolonialism as some authors have claimed (Biermann andMoller 2019, McLaren andCorry 2021). This argument follows that much geoengineering research is being funded and, thus, most likely, will be deployed in wealthy countries.…”

The Dangers of Mainstreaming Solar Geoengineering: A critique of the National Academies Report

“…Now, the postponed SCoPEx experiment demonstrates the dangers of deploying public consultation instrumentally and as an afterthought to a research program that has already been planned (Frumhoff and Stephens, 2018). The instrumentalization of public engagement as a strategy to solicit public consent is particularly problematic given the practical and political challenges involved in attempting to separate geoengineering research and deployment, a risk that is acknowledged frequently in the NASEM report (McLaren and Corry 2021).…”

Who Are the Engineers? Solar Geoengineering Research and Justice

“…There are, of course, limitations to these initiatives, and we are early yet in building global capacity for participation in both SG research and governance (McLaren and Corry, 2021). Importantly, the United States has begun appropriating funds for SG research without a federal governance framework (Talati 2020).…”