IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v176y2023i4d10.1007_s10584-023-03516-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua B. Horton

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Kerryn Brent

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Zhen Dai

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Tyler Felgenhauer

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Oliver Geden

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Jan McDonald

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Jeffrey McGee

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Felix Schenuit

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

  • Jianhua Xu

    (Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government)

Abstract

Solar geoengineering (SG), or the proposed use of technology to reflect sunlight back to space as a means of partially counteracting climate change, requires systematic research funded by public bodies, yet no dedicated national SG research programs (“programs”) currently exist. To explain why and understand how things might change in the future, we add concepts from role theory, a research tradition focused on international relations and foreign policy analysis, to the Multiple Streams Approach, a theoretical framework developed to study agenda setting at the national level, to assess policy processes related to SG research in four countries: Germany, China, Australia, and the United States (US). The results of our analysis indicate that, among these four states, only the US might plausibly consider initiating a program under present conditions. Germany, China, and Australia appear likely to seriously consider comparable efforts only in response to a US program, although their reasons for doing so and specific program designs would differ. The source of this variation, we argue, is the different foreign policy paradigms—or “national role conceptions”—prevailing in each state, which mediate between domestic and international politics and help define which policy proposals qualify as viable in different countries. From a policy perspective, this suggests that the global trajectory of SG depends disproportionately on developments in the US.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua B. Horton & Kerryn Brent & Zhen Dai & Tyler Felgenhauer & Oliver Geden & Jan McDonald & Jeffrey McGee & Felix Schenuit & Jianhua Xu, 2023. "Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03516-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilady, Lilach, 2018. "The Price of Prestige," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226433202, September.
    2. Binbin Wang & Qinnan Zhou, 2020. "Climate change in the Chinese mind: An overview of public perceptions at macro and micro levels," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(3), May.
    3. Ishani Mukherjee & Michael Howlett, 2015. "Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(2), pages 65-75.
    4. Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich & Fischer, Wolfgang & Venghaus, Sandra & Weckenbrock, Christoph, 2015. "The German Energiewende – History and status quo," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(P3), pages 532-546.
    5. Daniel Nohrstedt & Maurizio Mazzoleni & Charles F. Parker & Giuliano Baldassarre, 2021. "Exposure to natural hazard events unassociated with policy change for improved disaster risk reduction," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Jing Shi & Michael Siegrist & Joseph Arvai, 2017. "Beliefs and values explain international differences in perception of solar radiation management: insights from a cross-country survey," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 531-544, June.
    7. Ying CHEN, 2017. "International Debate Over Geoengineering and Geoengineering Governance," Chinese Journal of Urban and Environmental Studies (CJUES), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 1-15, September.
    8. Shiwei Fan & Lan Xue & Jianhua Xu, 2018. "What Drives Policy Attention to Climate Change in China? An Empirical Analysis through the Lens of People’s Daily," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rentier, Gerrit & Lelieveldt, Herman & Kramer, Gert Jan, 2019. "Varieties of coal-fired power phase-out across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 620-632.
    2. Sofia Dahlgren & Jonas Ammenberg, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II—Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Michael Mugarura & Wolfgang Stümer & Karsten Dunger & Andreas Bolte & Matt Ramlow & Emmanuel Ackom & Steffi Röhling, 2021. "Ascription of the differences between Germany and Uganda’s Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry sector greenhouse gas methodologies for inventory improvement," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Oei, Pao-Yu & Hermann, Hauke & Herpich, Philipp & Holtemöller, Oliver & Lünenbürger, Benjamin & Schult, Christoph, 2020. "Coal phase-out in Germany – Implications and policies for affected regions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Yeheng Pan & Yu Xie & Hepeng Jia & Xi Luo & Ruifen Zhang, 2022. "Lower Carbon, Stronger Nation: Exploring Sociopolitical Determinants for the Chinese Public’s Climate Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Fischer, W. & Hake, J.-Fr. & Kuckshinrichs, W. & Schröder, T. & Venghaus, S., 2016. "German energy policy and the way to sustainability: Five controversial issues in the debate on the “Energiewende”," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P3), pages 1580-1591.
    7. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nguyen, Thanh-Tung & Hoang, Viet-Ngu & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Energy transition, poverty and inequality in Vietnam," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 536-548.
    8. Galvin, Ray, 2018. "‘Them and us’: Regional-national power-plays in the German energy transformation: A case study in Lower Franconia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 269-277.
    9. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    10. Richard S. J. Tol, 2022. "State capacity and vulnerability to natural disasters," Chapters, in: Mark Skidmore (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Disasters, chapter 20, pages 434-457, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Jann Michael Weinand, 2020. "Reviewing Municipal Energy System Planning in a Bibliometric Analysis: Evolution of the Research Field between 1991 and 2019," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    12. Elspeth Spence & Emily Cox & Nick Pidgeon, 2021. "Exploring cross-national public support for the use of enhanced weathering as a land-based carbon dioxide removal strategy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Feitelson, Eran, 2018. "Shifting sands of planning in Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 695-706.
    14. Stöckl, Fabian & Schill, Wolf-Peter & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2021. "Optimal supply chains and power sector benefits of green hydrogen," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 11.
    15. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    16. Du, Juntao & Shen, Zhiyang & Song, Malin & Vardanyan, Michael, 2023. "The role of green financing in facilitating renewable energy transition in China: Perspectives from energy governance, environmental regulation, and market reforms," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    17. Zhen Dai & Elizabeth T. Burns & Peter J. Irvine & Dustin H. Tingley & Jianhua Xu & David W. Keith, 2021. "Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Klaus, Geraldine & Ernst, Andreas & Oswald, Lisa, 2020. "Psychological factors influencing laypersons’ acceptance of climate engineering, climate change mitigation and business as usual scenarios," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Dorman,Peter, 2022. "Alligators in the Arctic and How to Avoid Them," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316516270.
    20. Heitkoetter, Wilko & Medjroubi, Wided & Vogt, Thomas & Agert, Carsten, 2020. "Regionalised heat demand and power-to-heat capacities in Germany – An open dataset for assessing renewable energy integration," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03516-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.