IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v20y2020i2p57-82.html

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

Author

Listed:
  • Ina Möller

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Ina Möller, 2020. "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. I," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 57-82, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:20:y:2020:i:2:p:57-82
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/glep_a_00547
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Raffael Himmelsbach, 2018. "How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 124-133.
    2. Peter Irvine & Kerry Emanuel & Jie He & Larry W. Horowitz & Gabriel Vecchi & David Keith, 2019. "Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 295-299, April.
    3. Anita Talberg & Peter Christoff & Sebastian Thomas & David Karoly, 2018. "Geoengineering governance-by-default: an earth system governance perspective," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 229-253, April.
    4. Raul Lejano & Savita Shankar, 2013. "The contextualist turn and schematics of institutional fit: Theory and a case study from Southern India," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 83-102, March.
    5. Kemi Fuentes-George, 2017. "Consensus, Certainty, and Catastrophe: Discourse, Governance, and Ocean Iron Fertilization," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(2), pages 125-143, May.
    6. Allan, Bentley B., 2017. "Producing the Climate: States, Scientists, and the Constitution of Global Governance Objects," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 131-162, January.
    7. repec:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Duncan McLaren & Olaf Corry, 2021. "Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 12(S1), pages 20-33, April.
    2. Michael Finus & Francesco Furini, 2025. "On the credibility of threats to avoid the deployment of solar geoengineering," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 27(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Agni Kalfagianni & Oran R. Young, 2022. "The politics of multilateral environmental agreements lessons from 20 years of INEA," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 245-262, June.
    4. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Alejandro Esguerra & Sandra van der Hel, 2021. "Participatory Designs and Epistemic Authority in Knowledge Platforms for Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 21(1), pages 130-151, Winter.
    6. Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Khan, Zaheer & Wood, Geoffrey, 2021. "COVID-19 and business failures: The paradoxes of experience, scale, and scope for theory and practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-184.
    7. Katzenstein, Peter J., 2022. "Of Gardens, Forests, and Parks," EconStor Open Access Book Chapters, in: Uncertainty and Its Discontents: Worldviews in World Politics, pages 279-352, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Wake Smith & Claire Henly, 2021. "Updated and outdated reservations about research into stratospheric aerosol injection," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-15, February.
    9. Kate J. Neville, 2020. "Shadows of Divestment: The Complications of Diverting Fossil Fuel Finance," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 3-11, May.
    10. Riccardo Ghidoni & Anna Lou Abatayo & Valentina Bosetti & Marco Casari & Massimo Tavoni, 2023. "Governing Climate Geoengineering: Side Payments Are Not Enough," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(5), pages 1149-1177.
    11. Sergei Soldatenko & Rafael Yusupov, 2021. "An Optimal Control Perspective on Weather and Climate Modification," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Michael S. Diamond & Kelly Wanser & Olivier Boucher, 2023. "“Cooling credits” are not a viable climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(7), pages 1-9, July.
    13. Ching Leong & Raul Lejano, 2016. "Thick narratives and the persistence of institutions: using the Q methodology to analyse IWRM reforms around the Yellow River," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 445-465, December.
    14. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak & Robin Pierce, 2017. "Away from fossil-fuels and toward a bioeconomy: Knowledge versatility for public policy?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(6), pages 1010-1028, September.
    15. Tanaka, Shinsuke & Matsubayashi, Tetsuya, 2025. "The light of life: The effects of sunlight on suicide," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Khara Grieger & Jonathan B. Wiener & Jennifer Kuzma, 2024. "Improving risk governance strategies via learning: a comparative analysis of solar radiation modification and gene drives," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1054-1067, December.
    17. Sidan Wang & Luhua Yang, 2024. "Construction of environmental discourse concerning Europe in China," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 247-267, September.
    18. Dipu, Sudhakar & Quaas, Johannes & Quaas, Martin & Rickels, Wilfried & Mülmenstädt, Johannes & Boucher, Olivier, 2021. "Substantial Climate Response outside the Target Area in an Idealized Experiment of Regional Radiation Management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 240193, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    19. Marco Grasso, 2022. "Legitimacy and procedural justice: how might stratospheric aerosol injection function in the public interest?," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Todd L. Cherry & Stephan Kroll & David M. McEvoy, 2023. "Climate cooperation with risky solar geoengineering," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(10), pages 1-14, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tpr:glenvp:v:20:y:2020:i:2:p:57-82. 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: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.