Political Perspectives on Geoengineering: Navigating Problem Definition and Institutional Fit

Abstract

Geoengineering technologies are by definition only effective at scale, and so international policy development of some sort will be unavoidable. It is therefore important to include governability as a dimension when assessing the technologies’ feasibility and potential role in addressing climate change. The few existing studies that address this question indicate that for some technologies, policy development at the international level could be exceedingly difficult. This study provides an in-depth, theoretically informed analysis of the obstacles that policymakers face when addressing geoengineering governance. Using data in the form of negotiation proceedings, observations, and interviews with government officials from seven different countries, it argues that a significant part of the challenge lies in dissonances between problem definitions that are widely used in the geoengineering governance debate and the structures and expectations that shape environmental policy making. These include a lack of institutional fit between the process-based differentiation of geoengineering technologies (carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management) and the international legal architecture, a lack of fit between the urgency of demanded governance action and prevalent scientific and political uncertainties, and a lack of fit between risk–risk trade-off narratives and the precautionary norms of environmental governance.

Casting a Wider Net on Ocean NETs

“…This research has demonstrated how discussions on the feasibility and responsibility of various CE approaches have prioritized scientific and technical knowledge types Barben, 2018, 2020;Low and Schäfer, 2020). This is seen as particularly problematic in the Global South, where memories of broken promises mean that NETs may be seen as means for the Global North to avoid their responsibilities to reduce emissions (Cox et al, 2020a;Möller, 2020). Although the heterogeneous range of CE proposals raise differing governance challenges, a bounded range of expert knowledges have been shown to have both direct de facto governance effects on how the various techniques are being researched and developed, and indirect effects on how de jure governance (policy) is emerging (Boettcher, 2019;Gupta and Möller, 2019).…”

“…A wider body of research on CE assesses how different types of discourse may be shaping the development of technology governance (Harnisch et al, 2015;Biermann and Möller, 2019;Boettcher, 2019;Low and Boettcher, 2020;Möller, 2020). This research has demonstrated how discussions on the feasibility and responsibility of various CE approaches have prioritized scientific and technical knowledge types Barben, 2018, 2020;Low and Schäfer, 2020).…”

Cancel (Out) Emissions? The Envisaged Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal Technologies in Long-Term National Climate Strategies

“…Finally, we expect the main focus on CDR in the strategies and interviews to be on approaches that are not strictly considered to be climate engineering (CE) approaches (e.g., managing the Earth's radiation uptake). While CE methods have entered academic and popular science debates (Caldeira, 2009;Huttunen and Hildén, 2014;Himmelsbach, 2018;Lefale and Anderson, 2018;Low and Schäfer, 2019), alongside or interchangeably with CDR (Bellamy, 2013;Sapinski et al, 2020), and have been in focus in multilateral negotiations broadly aimed at limiting deployment (Bodansky, 2013;Möller, 2020;McLaren and Corry, 2021), solar radiation management is not yet a significant part of domestic policy debates (Reynolds, 2019).…”

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

“…Second, most actors currently discussing solar geoengineering are natural scientists, climate modelers and social scientists writing about governance; policy makers are only beginning to be involved [ 85 ]. Yet such expert visions are important, since they have the power to de facto shape the future governance and policy landscape for solar geoengineering [ 86 ].…”