Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

Abstract

Two recently proposed solar radiation management (SRM) experiments in the United States have highlighted the need for governance mechanisms to guide SRM research. This paper draws on the literatures on legitimacy in global governance, responsible innovation, and experimental governance to argue that public engagement is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for any legitimate SRM governance regime. We then build on the orchestration literature to argue that, in the absence of federal leadership, U.S. states, such as California, New York, and other existing leaders in climate governance more broadly have an important role to play in the near-term development of SRM research governance. Specifically, we propose that one or more U.S. states should establish a new interdisciplinary advisory commission to oversee and review the governance of SRM research in their states. Centrally, we propose that state-level advisory commissions on SRM research could help build legitimacy in SRM research decisions through the inclusion of, at minimum: meaningful public engagement early in the research design process; an iterative and reflexive mechanism for learning and improving both participatory governance mechanisms and broader SRM governance goals over time; as well as mechanisms for adaptation and diffusion of governance mechanisms across jurisdictions and scales.

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

“…These oversight aims could be realized, for example, through developing codes of conduct, coordinating research programmes, building a clearinghouse of information, capacity building and technology review and assessment. Others call for setting up early warning mechanisms, and capacity enhancement through public deliberation and institution building to assess risks and exercise oversight (e.g [ 12 , 21 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ]).…”

“…We characterize governance of solar geoengineering as an anticipatory challenge here because the very contours of the ‘object of governance’ remain uncertain and largely even unknowable [ 11 , 12 , 13 • , 14 ]. The term ‘anticipatory governance’ was first used in new public management and environmental policy studies in the early 1990s [ 15 ], in relation to novel technologies such as biotechnology or nanotechnology (see also [ 11 ]).…”

Solar Geoengineering: Social Science, Legal, Ethical, and Economic Frameworks

“…Institutional decision-making processes will also play an important role in the regulation and governance of geoengineering research. For example, drawing on different theoretical insights, Jinnah et al (152) advocate the creation of advisory commissions to oversee and review the governance of solar geoengineering research at the US substate level.…”

Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals

“…Here, he speaks of norms for using solar geoengineering, although others argue that norms and other non-state governance are applicable to early research efforts [125]. Norms could arise from key actors' socialization [60], scientific and professional societies, national academies of science [82], a new national or international commission dedicated to the task [81,95,126,127], or even 'downward' from states or substate jurisdictions [5,86,88,128]. In time, those norms that are more advisory, general and self-implemented can form the basis for subsequent ones that are obligatory, precise and delegated and that are developed and enforced by states [92].…”