Solar geoengineering research in the social sciences and humanities has largely evolved in parallel with research in the natural sciences. In this article, we review the current state of the literature on the ethical, legal, economic, and social science aspects of this emerging area. We discuss issues regarding the framing and futures of solar geoengineering, empirical social science on public views and public engagement, the evolution of ethical concerns regarding research and deployment, and the current legal and economic frameworks and emerging proposals for the regulation and governance of solar geoengineering.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Schäfer S, Low S 2014. Asilomar moments: formative framings in recombinant DNA and solar climate engineering research. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 372:20140064
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    R. Soc 2009. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty Policy Doc. 10/09, R. Soc., London
  3. 3. 
    Latour B 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit. Inq. 30:225–48
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Stilgoe J 2015. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering New York: Routledge
  5. 5. 
    Jasanoff S 1996. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 26:393–418
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Jasanoff Sed 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order New York: Routledge
  7. 7. 
    Guston D, Sarewitz D 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technol. Soc. 24:93–109
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Vaughan N, Lenton T 2011. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109:745–90
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Caldeira K, Bala G, Cao L 2013. The science of geoengineering. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41:231–56
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Irvine P, Kravitz B, Lawrence M, Muri H 2016. An overview of the earth system science of solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 7:815–33
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Irvine P, Kravitz B, Lawrence M, Gerten D, Caminade C et al. 2017. Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. Earth's Future 5:93–106
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Task Force Clim. Remediat. Res 2011. Geoengineering: a national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies Final Rep., Bipartis. Policy Cent., Washington, DC
  13. 13. 
    Natl. Res. Council 2015. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
  14. 14. 
    Natl. Res. Council 2015. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
  15. 15. 
    Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2018. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda Washington, DC: Natl. Acad.
  16. 16. 
    Chhetri N, Chong D, Conca K, Falk R, Gillespie A et al. 2018. Governing solar radiation managementFinal Rep., Forum Clim. Eng. Assess., Am. Univ., Washington, DC
  17. 17. 
    Bellamy R, Lezaun J 2017. Crafting a public for geoengineering. Public Underst. Sci. 26:402–17
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Rayner S 2017. Climate engineering: responsible innovation or reckless folly. Responsible Innovation 3 L Asveld, R van Dam-Mieras, T Swierstra, S Lavrijssen, K Linse, J van den Hoven113–29. Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Cook-Deegan R 1994. The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome New York: Norton
  20. 20. 
    Collingridge D 1982. The Social Control of Technology New York: St. Martin's
  21. 21. 
    Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42:1568–80
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Jasanoff S 2003. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–44
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Winner L 1978. Autonomous Technology: Technics-Out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  24. 24. 
    Johnson J 1988. Mixing humans and nonhumans together: the sociology of a door-closer. Soc. Probl. 35:298–310
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Funtowicz S, Ravetz J 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–55
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Szerszynski B, Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Owen R, Stilgoe J 2013. Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won't mix. Environ. Plan. A 45:2809–16
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Horton J, Reynolds J, Buck H, Callies D 2018. Solar geoengineering and democracy. Glob. Environ. Politics 18:5–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Rayner S, Heyward C, Kruger T, Pidgeon N, Redgwell C, Savulescu J 2013. The Oxford Principles. Clim. Change 121:499–512
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Winickoff D, Brown M 2013. Time for a government advisory committee on geoengineering research. Issues Sci. Technol. 29:79–85
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Parthasarathy S, Avery C, Hedberg N, Mannisto J, Maguire M 2010. A public good? Geoengineering and intellectual propertyWork. Pap. 10-1, Sci. Technol. Public Policy Program, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor
  31. 31. 
    Oldham P, Szerszynski B, Stilgoe J, Brown C, Eacott B, Yuille A 2014. Mapping the landscape of climate engineering. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 372:20140065
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Gupta A, Möller I 2018. De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance. Environ. Politics 28:480–501
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Jasanoff S, Kim S 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  34. 34. 
    Porter K, Hulme M 2013. The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. Geogr. J. 179:342–55
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Scholte S, Vasileiadou E, Petersen A 2013. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 10:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan N, Lenton T 2012. A review of climate geoengineering appraisals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev. Clim. Change 3:597–615
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Huttunen S, Skytén E, Hildén M 2015. Emerging policy perspectives on geoengineering: an international comparison. Anthr. Rev. 2:14–32
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Macnaghten P, Szerszynski B 2013. Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob. Environ. Change 23:465–74
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Gardiner SM 2011. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the Royal Society report. Environ. Values 20:163–88
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Stirling A 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33:262–94
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Buck HJ 2013. Climate engineering: spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news media framing. Interpretive Approaches to Global Climate Governance: (De)constructing the Greenhouse C Methmann, D Rothe, B Stephan166–81. New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Nerlich B, Jaspal R 2012. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symb. 27:131–47
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Sikka T 2012. A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Crit. Discourse Stud. 9:163–75
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Gardiner SM 2013. The desperation argument for geoengineering. Political Sci. Politics 46:28–33
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Markusson N, Ginn F, Singh Ghaleigh N, Scott V 2014. “In case of emergency press here”: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5:281–90
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Cairns R, Stirling A 2014. “Maintaining planetary systems” or “concentrating global power?” High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering. Glob. Environ. Change 28:25–38
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Hulme M 2012. Climate change: climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 36:694–705
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Heyward C 2013. Situating and abandoning geoengineering: a typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. Political Sci. Politics 46:23–27
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Schmitt C( 1928.). Dictatorship: From the Origin of the Modern Concept of Sovereignty to Proletarian Class Struggle. Cambridge, UK: Polity
  50. 50. 
    Agamben G 2005. State of Exception 2 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  51. 51. 
    Calhoun C 2004. A world of emergencies: fear, intervention, and the limits of cosmopolitan order. Can. Rev. Sociol./Rev. Can. Sociol. 41:373–95
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Sillmann J, Lenton T, Levermann A, Ott K, Hulme M et al. 2015. Climate emergencies do not justify engineering the climate. Nat. Clim. Change 5:290–92
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Hulme M 2014. Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering New York: Wiley
  54. 54. 
    Luokkanen M, Huttunen S, Hildén M 2014. Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: framing the controversial. Public Underst. Sci. 23:966–81
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18:285–98
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Selin C 2008. The sociology of the future: tracing stories of technology and time. Soc. Compass 2:1878–95
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Low S 2017. The futures of climate engineering. Earth's Future 5:67–71
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Wiertz T 2016. Visions of climate control: solar radiation management in climate simulations. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 41:438–60
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Heyen D, Wiertz T, Irvine P 2015. Regional disparities in SRM impacts: the challenge of diverging preferences. Clim. Change 133:557–63
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Epstein S 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  61. 61. 
    Winickoff D, Flegal J, Asrat A 2015. Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nat. Clim. Change 5:627–34
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Flegal J, Gupta A 2018. Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 18:45–61
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Beck S, Mahony M 2017. The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nat. Clim Change 7:311–13
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Rayner S 2016. What might Evans-Pritchard have made of two degrees. Anthropol. Today 321–2
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Stilgoe J 2016. Geoengineering as collective experimentation. Sci. Eng. Ethics 22:851–69
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Rayner S 2004. The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult. Ind. High. Educ. 18:349–55
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    McLaren D 2016. Framing out justice: the post-politics of climate engineering discourses. 139–60
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Carr W, Preston CJ 2017. Skewed vulnerabilities and moral corruption in global perspectives on climate engineering. Environ. Values 26:757–77
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Frumhoff P, Stephens J 2018. Towards legitimacy of the solar geoengineering research enterprise. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 376:20160459
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Burns E, Flegal J, Keith D, Mahajan A, Tingley D, Wagner G 2016. What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research. Earth's Future 4:536–42
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Wilsdon J, Willis R 2004. See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstreamProj. Rep., Demos, London
  72. 72. 
    Fiorino D 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 15:226–43
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Burns WCG, Flegal J 2015. Climate geoengineering and the role of public deliberation: a comment on the US National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations on public participation. Clim. Law 5:252–94
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Wynne B, Felt U 2007. Taking European knowledge seriously: report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European CommissionFinal Rep., Eur. Comm., Luxembourg
  75. 75. 
    Lövbrand E, Pielke R Jr., Beck S 2011. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 36:474–96
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Stilgoe J, Lock S, Wilsdon J 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science. Public Underst. Sci. 234–15
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Rayner S 2003. Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Sci. Public Policy 30:163–70
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Guston D 2014.Understanding “anticipatory governance.” Soc. Stud. Sci. 44:218–42
  79. 79. 
    Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N 2011. “Experiment Earth?” Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineeringTech. Rep., Cardiff Univ., Cardiff, Wales
  80. 80. 
    Corner A, Pidgeon N 2015. Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Clim. Change 130:425–38
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Corner A, Parkhill K, Pidgeon N, Vaughan N 2013. Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Glob. Environ. Change 23:938–47
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Bellamy R, Chilvers J, Vaughan N 2016. Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists “open up” appraisal of geoengineering. Public Underst. Sci. 25:269–86
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Jamieson D 1996. Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim. Change 33:323–36
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Betz G, Cacean S 2012. Ethical Aspects of Climate Engineering Karlsruhe, Ger.: KIT Sci. Publ.
  85. 85. 
    Preston CJ 2013. Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4:23–37
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Preston CJ ed 2012. Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Lanham, MD: Lexington
  87. 87. 
    Hale B 2012. The world that would have been: moral hazard arguments against geoengineering. 113–32
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Hamilton C 2013. Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  89. 89. 
    Gardiner SM 2010. Is ‘arming the future’ with geoengineering really a lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system. Climate Ethics: Essential Readings SM Gardiner, S Caney, D Jamieson, H Shue284–313. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Ott K 2012. Might solar radiation management constitute a dilemma. See Ref. 86 33–42
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Svoboda T, Keller K, Goes M, Tuana N 2011. Sulfate aerosol geoengineering: the question of justice. Public Aff. Q. 25:157–79
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Morrow DR, Kopp RE, Oppenheimer M 2013.Political legitimacy in decisions about experiments in solar radiation management. In Climate Change Geoengineering WCG Burns, AL Strauss146–67. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  93. 93. 
    Whyte K 2012. Now this! Indigenous sovereignty, political obliviousness and governance models for SRM research. Ethics Policy Environ. 15:172–87
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Smith PT 2012. Domination and the ethics of solar radiation management. See Ref. 86 43–61
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Elliott K 2010. Geoengineering and the precautionary principle. Int. J. Appl. Philos. 24:237–53
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Hartzell-Nichols L 2012. Precaution and solar radiation management. Ethics Policy Environ. 15:158–71
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Preston CJ ed 2016. Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  98. 98. 
    Baatz C, Heyward C, Stelzer H 2016. The ethics of engineering the climate. Environ. Values 25:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Morrow DR 2014. Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 372:20140062
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Baatz C 2016. Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between mitigation and solar radiation management. Environ. Values 25:29–49
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Preston CJ 2016. Climate engineering and the cessation requirement: the ethics of a life-cycle. Environ. Values 25:91–107
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    McLaren D 2016. Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management. Earth's Future 4:596–602
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Wong P 2016. Consenting to geoengineering. Philos. Technol. 29:173–88
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Svoboda T 2017. The Ethics of Climate Engineering: Solar Radiation Management and Non-Ideal Justice New York: Routledge
  105. 105. 
    Svoboda T, Irvine P 2014. Ethical and technical challenges in compensating for harm due to solar radiation management geoengineering. Ethics Policy Environ. 17:157–74
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Hartman L 2017. Climate engineering and the playing God critique. Ethics Int. Aff. 31:313–33
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    McKinnon C 2019. Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research. Environ. Politics 28:444–51
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Callies DE 2019. The slippery slope argument against geoengineering research. J. Appl. Philos. 36675–87
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Morrow DR 2014. Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation management. Ethics Policy Environ. 17:123–38
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Preston CJ 2017. Carbon emissions, stratospheric aerosol injection, and unintended harms. Ethics Int. Aff. 31:479–93
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Morrow DR, Svoboda T 2016. Geoengineering and non-ideal theory. Public Aff. Q. 30:83–102
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Hourdequin M 2018. Geoengineering justice: the role of recognition. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 44:448–77
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    McLaren D 2018. Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44:209–21
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Preston CJ, Carr W 2019. Recognitional justice, climate engineering, and the care approach. Ethics Policy Environ. 21:308–23
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Lenzi D 2018. The ethics of negative emissions. Glob. Sustain. 1:e7
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Hale B, Dilling L 2011. Geoengineering, ocean fertilization, and the problem of permissible pollution. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 36:190–212
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Lawford-Smith H, Currie A 2017. Accelerating the carbon cycle: the ethics of enhanced weathering. Biol. Lett. 13:20160859
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Shue H 2017. Climate dreaming: negative emissions, risk transfer, and irreversibility. J. Hum. Rights Environ. 8:203–16
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Bodansky D 1996. May we engineer the climate. Clim. Change 33309–21
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Redgwell C 2011. Geoengineering the climate: technological solutions to mitigation—failure or continuing carbon addiction. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 5:178–89
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    Scott K 2012. International law in the Anthropocene: responding to the geoengineering challenge. Mich. J. Int. Law 34:309
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Burns WCG 2016. The Paris Agreement and climate geoengineering governance: the need for a human-rights based componentCIGI Pap. 111, Cent. Int. Gov. Innov., Waterloo, Can.
  123. 123. 
    Reynolds JL, Contreras JL, Sarnoff JD 2018. Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 9:e512
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Pulp mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, 2006 I.C.J. Rep. 113, P 197 (April 20)
  125. 125. 
    Brent K, McGee J, Maguire A 2015. Does the “no-harm” rule have a role in preventing transboundary harm and harm to the global atmospheric commons from geoengineering. Clim. Law 535–63
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Reichwein D, Hubert A, Irvine P, Benduhn F, Lawrence M 2015. State responsibility for environmental harm from climate engineering. Clim. Law 5:142–81
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Craik AN 2015. International EIA law and geoengineering: Do emerging technologies require special rules. Clim. Law 5111–41
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Armeni C, Redgwell C 2015. International legal and regulatory issues of climate geoengineering governance: rethinking the approach CGG Work. Pap. 21, Clim. Geoeng. Gov. Proj., Univ. Oxford, Oxford, UK
  129. 129. 
    Armeni C, Redgwell C 2015. Geoengineering under national law: a case study of Germany Tech. Rep./CGG Work. Pap. 24, Inst. Sci. Innov. Soc., Oxford Univ., Oxford, UK
  130. 130. 
    United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity.Decision X/33: biodiversity and climate change UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27 (29 October 2010)
  131. 131. 
    United Nations, Convention on Biological Diversity.Decision XIII/14: climate-related geoengineering CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/14 (8 December 2016)
  132. 132. 
    Markus T, Ginsky H 2011. Regulating climate engineering: paradigmatic aspects of the regulation of ocean fertilization. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 5:477–90
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Gjerde K, Rayfuse R, Lawrence M 2008. Ocean fertilisation and climate change: the need to regulate emerging high seas uses. Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 23:297–326
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    United Nations, International Maritime Organization Resolution LC-LP.1(2008): on the regulation of ocean fertilization (30 May 2008)
  135. 135. 
    United Nations, International Maritime Organization. Resolution LC-LP.2(2010): on the assessment framework for scientific research involving ocean fertilization (14 October 2010)
  136. 136. 
    Lukacs M 2012. World's biggest geoengineering experiment ‘violates’ UN rules. Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137. 
    United Nations, International Maritime Organization Assessment framework for scientific research involving ocean fertilization Briefing 50/2010 (20 October 2013)
  138. 138. 
    Ginzky H, Frost R 2014. Marine geo-engineering: legally binding regulation under the London Protocol. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 8:82–96
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 139. 
    United Nations, Conference of the Parties on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeParis agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (12 December 2015). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf
  140. 140. 
    Tollefson J 2015. Is the 2°C world a fantasy. Nature 527436–38
    [Google Scholar]
  141. 141. 
    Williamson P 2016. Scrutinize CO2 removal methods: the viability and environmental risks of removing carbon dioxide from the air must be assessed if we are to achieve the Paris goals. Nature 530:153–56
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142. 
    Craik AN, Burns WCG 2016. Climate engineering under the Paris agreement: a legal and policy primerSpec. Rep., Cent. Int. Gov. Innov., Waterloo, Can.
  143. 143. 
    Saxler B, Siegfried J, Proelss A 2015. International liability for transboundary damage arising from stratospheric aerosol injections. Law Innov. Technol. 7:112–47
    [Google Scholar]
  144. 144. 
    Craik AN, Blackstock J, Hubert A 2013. Regulating geoengineering research through domestic environmental protection frame-works: reflections on the recent Canadian ocean fertilization case. Carbon Clim. Law Rev. 7:117–24
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 145. 
    Hester T 2011. Remaking the world to save it: applying US environmental laws to climate engineering projects. Ecol. Law Q. 38:851
    [Google Scholar]
  146. 146. 
    Hubert A, Reichwein D 2015. An exploration of a code of conduct for responsible scientific research involving geoengineeringWork. Pap., Inst. Adv. Sustain. Stud., Potsdam, Ger.
  147. 147. 
    Bodansky D 2013. The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance. Clim. Change 121:539–51
    [Google Scholar]
  148. 148. 
    Craik AN, Moore N 2014. Disclosure-based governance for climate engineering researchCIGI Pap. 50, Cent. Int. Gov. Innov., Waterloo, Can.
  149. 149. 
    Parson E, Ernst L 2013. International governance of climate engineering. Theor. Inq. Law 14:307–38
    [Google Scholar]
  150. 150. 
    Dilling L, Hauser R 2013. Governing geoengineering research: Why, when and how. Clim. Change 121553–65
    [Google Scholar]
  151. 151. 
    Hubert A 2017. Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research Calgary: Geoeng. Res. Gov. Proj.
  152. 152. 
    Jinnah S, Nicholson S, Flegal J 2018. Toward legitimate governance of solar geoengineering research: a role for sub-state actors. Ethics Policy Environ. 21:362–81
    [Google Scholar]
  153. 153. 
    United Nations, Conference on Environment and DevelopmentRio declaration on environment and development A/CONF.151/26, vol. I (14 June 1992)
  154. 154. 
    Heutel G, Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K 2016. Climate engineering economics. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8:99–118
    [Google Scholar]
  155. 155. 
    Harding A, Moreno-Cruz J 2016. Solar geoengineering economics: from incredible to inevitable and half-way back. Earth's Future 4:569–77
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 156. 
    Harding A, Moreno-Cruz J 2019.The economics of geoengineering. In Managing Global Warming TM Letcher729–50. Amsterdam: Elsevier
  157. 157. 
    Heutel G, Moreno-Cruz J, Shayegh S 2018. Solar geoengineering, uncertainty, and the price of carbon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 87:24–41
    [Google Scholar]
  158. 158. 
    Moreno-Cruz J, Keith D 2013. Climate policy under uncertainty: a case for solar geoengineering. Clim. Change 121:431–44
    [Google Scholar]
  159. 159. 
    Keith D, Parson E, Morgan M 2010. Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 463:426–27
    [Google Scholar]
  160. 160. 
    Moreno-Cruz J, Ricke K, Keith D 2012. A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim. Change 110:649–68
    [Google Scholar]
  161. 161. 
    Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K 2011. The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim. Change 109:719–44
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 162. 
    Bickel JE, Lane L 2009. An analysis of climate engineering as a response to climate changeReport, Copenhagen Consens. Cent., Copenhagen Bus. Sch., Fredriksberg, Den.
  163. 163. 
    Schelling T 1996. The economic diplomacy of geoengineering. Clim. Change 33:303–7
    [Google Scholar]
  164. 164. 
    Barrett S 2003. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  165. 165. 
    Moreno-Cruz J 2015. Mitigation and the geoengineering threat. Resour. Energy Econ. 41:248–63
    [Google Scholar]
  166. 166. 
    Millard-Ball A 2012. The Tuvalu syndrome. Clim. Change 110:1047–66
    [Google Scholar]
  167. 167. 
    Manoussi V, Xepapadeas A 2017. Cooperation and competition in climate change policies: mitigation and climate engineering when countries are asymmetric. Environ. Resour. Econ. 66:605–27
    [Google Scholar]
  168. 168. 
    Ricke K, Moreno-Cruz J, Caldeira K 2013. Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation. Environ. Res. Lett. 8:014021
    [Google Scholar]
  169. 169. 
    Weitzman M 2015. A voting architecture for the governance of free-driver externalities, with application to geoengineering. Scand. J. Econ. 117:1049–68
    [Google Scholar]
  170. 170. 
    Finus M 2008. Game theoretic research on the design of international environmental agreements: insights, critical remarks, and future challenges. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2:29–67
    [Google Scholar]
  171. 171. 
    Emmerling J, Tavoni M 2017. Quantifying non-cooperative climate engineeringWork. Pap. 58.2017, Fond. Eni Enrico Matte, Milan, Italy
  172. 172. 
    Parker A, Horton J, Keith D 2018. Stopping solar geoengineering through technical means: a preliminary assessment of counter-geoengineering. Earth's Future 6:1058–65
    [Google Scholar]
  173. 173. 
    Heyen D, Horton J, Moreno-Cruz J 2018. Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: clash or cooperation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 95153–77
    [Google Scholar]
  174. 174. 
    Ricke K, Morgan M, Allen M 2010. Regional climate response to solar-radiation management. Nat. Geosci. 3:537–41
    [Google Scholar]
  175. 175. 
    Kravitz B, MacMartin D, Robock A, Rasch P, Ricke K et al. 2014. A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:074013
    [Google Scholar]
  176. 176. 
    Rickels W, Quaas M, Ricke K, Quaas J, Moreno-Cruz J, Smulders S 2018.Turning the global thermostat—who, when, and how much? Tech. Rep./Work. Pap., Inst. Weltwirtsch., Kiel, Ger.
  177. 177. 
    Rayner S 2012. Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ. Soc. 41:107–25
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error