IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v14y2014i4p57-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From ‘Go Slow’ to ‘Gung Ho’? Climate Engineering Discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Sebastian Harnisch
  • Stephanie Uther
  • Miranda Boettcher

Abstract

Climate engineering (CE) is becoming a hot topic in social science. However, existing research on societal preferences remains too suggestive. Using comparative discourse analysis, this article offers an alternative approach highlighting the role of science in CE discourse to develop a generic understanding of the debate. The findings suggest that CE discourses in the US, the UK, and Germany are developing at different paces, with country-specific discourse patterns. Despite these differences, distinct arguments legitimizing the need for CE research are predominant in all three countries, and the CE debate is neither closing nor rushing towards the support of CE deployment. Rather, we find a prevalence of certain arguments in science, politics and the media in all three countries calling for CE research; and distinct discourse patterns in the US and UK that make the case for early capacity to deploy CE measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Sebastian Harnisch & Stephanie Uther & Miranda Boettcher, 2015. "From ‘Go Slow’ to ‘Gung Ho’? Climate Engineering Discourses in the UK, the US, and Germany," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 15(2), pages 57-78, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:14:y:2014:i:4:p:57-78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/GLEP_a_00298
    File Function: link to full text PDF
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Sheila Jasanoff, 2008. "Trading Uncertainties: The Transatlantic Divide in Regulating Biotechnology," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 6(2), pages 36-43, 07.
    2. Jarrod Hayes & Janelle Knox-Hayes, 2014. "Security in Climate Change Discourse: Analyzing the Divergence between US and EU Approaches to Policy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 14(2), pages 82-101, May.
    3. Steve Rayner & Clare Heyward & Tim Kruger & Nick Pidgeon & Catherine Redgwell & Julian Savulescu, 2013. "The Oxford Principles," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 499-512, December.
    4. Wylie Carr & Christopher Preston & Laurie Yung & Bronislaw Szerszynski & David Keith & Ashley Mercer, 2013. "Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 567-577, December.
    5. Lisa Dilling & Rachel Hauser, 2013. "Governing geoengineering research: why, when and how?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 553-565, December.
    6. repec:ces:ifodic:v:6:y:2008:i:2:p:14567139 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Sheila Jasanoff, 2008. "Trading Uncertainties: The Transatlantic Divide in Regulating Biotechnology," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 6(02), pages 36-43, July.
    8. John Barry & Geraint Ellis & Clive Robinson, 2008. "Cool Rationalities and Hot Air: A Rhetorical Approach to Understanding Debates on Renewable Energy," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 67-98, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Todd Sandler, 2018. "Collective action and geoengineering," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 105-125, March.

    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. Masahiro Sugiyama & Shinichiro Asayama & Atsushi Ishii & Takanobu Kosugi & John C. Moore & Jolene Lin & Penehuro F. Lefale & Wil Burns & Masatomo Fujiwara & Arunabha Ghosh & Joshua Horton & Atsushi Ku, 2017. "The Asia-Pacific’s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 1-12, July.
    2. Victoria Wibeck & Anders Hansson & Jonas Anshelm & Shinichiro Asayama & Lisa Dilling & Pamela M. Feetham & Rachel Hauser & Atsushi Ishii & Masahiro Sugiyama, 2017. "Making sense of climate engineering: a focus group study of lay publics in four countries," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 145(1), pages 1-14, November.
    3. Wylie Carr & Christopher Preston & Laurie Yung & Bronislaw Szerszynski & David Keith & Ashley Mercer, 2013. "Public engagement on solar radiation management and why it needs to happen now," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 567-577, December.
    4. Ioannidis, Romanos & Koutsoyiannis, Demetris, 2020. "A review of land use, visibility and public perception of renewable energy in the context of landscape impact," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    5. Xiaoyi Li, 2024. "How can we make an orderly transition away from fossil fuels? A global tour of modern energy," Energy & Environment, , vol. 35(6), pages 2959-2974, September.
    6. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    7. Brinkley, Catherine, 2018. "The conundrum of combustible clean energy: Sweden's history of siting district heating smokestacks in residential areas," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 526-532.
    8. Benjamin P. Warner & Daniel L. Childers & Christopher Kuzdas & Gabriela Stocks, 2018. "Smallholder Adaptation to Drought in Costa Rica's Crony Capitalist Rice Economy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 49(6), pages 1392-1421, November.
    9. Anna Korppoo, 2022. "Russian discourses on benefits and threats from international climate diplomacy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-24, February.
    10. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    11. Stranadko, Nataliya, 2021. "EU-US climate cooperation: Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of the Paris agreement," Discussion Papers 02/2021, Europa-Kolleg Hamburg, Institute for European Integration.
    12. Isoaho, Karoliina & Karhunmaa, Kamilla, 2019. "A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 930-942.
    13. Lomax, Guy & Workman, Mark & Lenton, Timothy & Shah, Nilay, 2015. "Reframing the policy approach to greenhouse gas removal technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 125-136.
    14. Heffron, Raphael J. & McCauley, Darren, 2014. "Achieving sustainable supply chains through energy justice," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 435-437.
    15. 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.
    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. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    18. Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2017. "Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1362-1376, December.
    19. 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.
    20. Rasch, Elisabet Dueholm & Köhne, Michiel, 2017. "Practices and imaginations of energy justice in transition. A case study of the Noordoostpolder, the Netherlands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 607-614.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate engineering; social science; climate engineering discourse;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:14:y:2014:i:4:p:57-78. 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.