Actors, legitimacy, and governance challenges facing negative emissions and solar geoengineering technologies

References

• Aven, T., 2016. Risk assessment and risk management: review of recent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Operational Research, 253 (1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baum, C.M., Low, S., and Sovacool, B.K., 2022. Between the sun and us: expert perceptions on the innovation, policy, and deep uncertainties of space-based solar geoengineering. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 158 April 112179, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beder, S., 1991. Controversy and closure: sydney’s beaches in crisis. Social Studies of Science, 21 (2), 223–256. doi:10.1177/030631291021002003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biermann, F., et al., 2022. Solar geoengineering: the case for an international non-use agreement. WIREs Climate Change, 13 (3), e754. doi:10.1002/wcc.754.
   Google Scholar
• Biermann, F. and Möller, I., 2019. Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South. International Environmental Agreements, 19 (2), 151–167. doi:10.1007/s10784-019-09431-0.
   Google Scholar
• Bijker, W.E., 1995. Sociohistorical technology studies. In: S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 229–256.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, N., Rappert, B., and Webster, A., 2000. Introducing contested futures: from looking into the future to looking at the future. In: N. Brown, B. Rappert, and A. Webster, eds. Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-science. Abingdon: Routledge, 3–20.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, H.N. and Macey, J.R., 1996. Externalities and the matching principle: the case for reallocating environmental regulatory authority. Yale Law & Policy Review, 14, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Delina, L., 2021. Southeast Asian expert perceptions of solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal approaches: caution, ambivalence, risk precaution, and research directions. Environmental Research Communications, 3 (12), 125005. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ac3dc1.
   Google Scholar
• Felgenhauer, T., Horton, J., and Keith, D., 2022. Solar geoengineering research on the U.S. policy agenda: when might its time come? Environmental Politics, 31 (3), 498–518. doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1933763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florini, A.E. and Sovacool, B.K., 2009. Who governs energy? The challenges facing global energy governance. Energy Policy, 37 (12), 5239–5248. December doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S., Morrow, D., and Nicholson, S., 2021. Splitting climate engineering governance: how problem structure shapes institutional design. Global Policy, 12 (S1), 8–19. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12900.
   Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S. and Nicholson, S., 2019. The hidden politics of climate engineering. Nature Geoscience, 12, 874–879. doi:10.1038/s41561-019-0483-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern, F.K.S.R., 2018. Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27, 102–117. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Low, S.J., Baum, C., and Sovacool, B.K., 2022a. Rethinking Net-Zero systems, spaces, and societies: “Hard” versus “soft” alternatives for nature-based and engineered carbon removal. Global Environmental Change, 75 July 102530, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, S.J., Baum, C., and Sovacool, B.K., 2022b. Taking it outside: exploring social opposition to 21 early-stage experiments in radical climate interventions. Energy Research & Social Science, 90, 1–21. 102594. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2022.102594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney, J. and Schensul, D., 2006. Historical context and path dependence. In: R. Goodin and C. Tilly, eds. The oxford handbook of contextual political analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 454–471.
   Google Scholar
• McLaren, D., 2016. Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management. Earth’s Future, 4 (12), 596–602. doi:10.1002/2016EF000445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, 2021. Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) Reflecting sunlight: recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25762.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, R., 2014. Solar radiation management and the governance of hubris. In: R.M. Harrison and R. Hester. Geoengineering of the Climate System 212–248. Royal Society of Chemistry, London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
   Google Scholar
• Pinch, T.J. and Bijker, W.E., 1984. The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14 (3), 399–441. doi:10.1177/030631284014003004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnedler, W. and Vadovic, R., 2011. Legitimacy of control. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20 (4), 985–1009. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2011.00315.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B.K., et al., July 2022. Climate policy for a net-zero future: ten recommendations for direct air capture. Environmental Research Letters, 17(7), 1–22. 074014 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac77a4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B.K., Baum, C., and Low, S.J., 2023. Risk–risk governance in a low-carbon future: exploring institutional, technological, and behavioral tradeoffs in climate geoengineering pathways. Risk Analysis, 43 (4), 838–859. in press. doi:10.1111/risa.13932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, J.C., et al., 2021. The dangers of mainstreaming solar geoengineering: a critique of the national academies report. Environmental Politics, 32 (1), 157–166. doi:10.1080/09644016.2021.1989214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, J.C.P.K., McLaren, D., and Surprise, K., 2022. Toward dangerous US unilateralism on solar geoengineering. Environmental Politics, 32 (1), 171–173. doi:10.1080/09644016.2022.2156182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephens, J. and Surprise, K., 2020. The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research. Global Sustainability, 3, E2. doi:10.1017/sus.2019.28.
   Google Scholar
• Táíwò, O.O. and Talati, S., 2022. Who are the engineers? Solar geoengineering research and justice. Global Environmental Politics, 22 (1), 12–18. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Temple, J. 2022. A startup says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate. MIT Technology Review, 24 December 2022. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/24/1066041/a-startup-says-its-begun-releasing-particles-into-the-atmosphere-in-an-effort-to-tweak-the-climate/ (accessed 3 January 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Torfing, J., 2009. Rethinking path dependence in public policy research. Critical Policy Studies, 3 (1), 70–83. doi:10.1080/19460170903158149.
   Google Scholar
• Victor, D.G., 2009. On the regulation of geoengineering. In: D. Helm and C. Hepburn, eds. The economics and politics of climate change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 325–339.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, G., 2011. Environmental justice: concepts, evidence and politics. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Winickoff, D.E., Flegal, J.A., and Asrat, A., 2015. Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change, 5 (7), 627–634. doi:10.1038/nclimate2632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Population Review. 2022. Global south countries 2022. Available from: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/global-south-countries.
   Google Scholar