IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v20y2020i2p57-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 poli," 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
    8. -, 2009. "The economics of climate change," Sede Subregional de la CEPAL para el Caribe (Estudios e Investigaciones) 38679, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    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. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    3. Li, Aijun & Du, Nan & Wei, Qian, 2014. "The cross-country implications of alternative climate policies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 155-163.
    4. Strand, Jon, 2011. "Carbon offsets with endogenous environmental policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 371-378, March.
    5. Bosetti, Valentina & Carraro, Carlo & Duval, Romain & Tavoni, Massimo, 2011. "What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1313-1320.
    6. Richard S. J. Tol & In Chang Hwang & Frédéric Reynès, 2012. "The Effect of Learning on Climate Policy under Fat-tailed Uncertainty," Working Paper Series 5312, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Fujii, Hidemichi & Managi, Shunsuke, 2013. "Which industry is greener? An empirical study of nine industries in OECD countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 381-388.
    8. Pycroft, Jonathan & Vergano, Lucia & Hope, Chris & Paci, Daniele & Ciscar, Juan Carlos, 2011. "A tale of tails: Uncertainty and the social cost of carbon dioxide," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 5, pages 1-29.
    9. Simon Levin & Anastasios Xepapadeas, 2021. "On the Coevolution of Economic and Ecological Systems," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 355-377, October.
    10. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Golub, Alexander (Голуб, Александр), 2018. "Methodological Issues of Assessing Investment Risks in Projects Weakening the Dependence of the Russian Economy on Natural Resources and Providing a Transition to Low-Carbon Development [Методологи," Working Papers 071802, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.
    12. Bommier, Antoine & Lanz, Bruno & Zuber, Stéphane, 2015. "Models-as-usual for unusual risks? On the value of catastrophic climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-22.
    13. Lamperti, Francesco & Bosetti, Valentina & Roventini, Andrea & Tavoni, Massimo & Treibich, Tania, 2021. "Three green financial policies to address climate risks," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    14. Matthew J. Holian & Matthew E. Kahn, 2014. "Household Demand for Low Carbon Public Policies: Evidence from California," NBER Working Papers 19965, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Steve Newbold & Charles Griffiths & Christopher C. Moore & Ann Wolverton & Elizabeth Kopits, 2010. "The "Social Cost of Carbon" Made Simple," NCEE Working Paper Series 201007, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Aug 2010.
    16. Kenneth Gillingham & William D. Nordhaus & David Anthoff & Geoffrey Blanford & Valentina Bosetti & Peter Christensen & Haewon McJeon & John Reilly & Paul Sztorc, 2015. "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," NBER Working Papers 21637, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Melissa Dell & Benjamin F. Jones & Benjamin A. Olken, 2014. "What Do We Learn from the Weather? The New Climate-Economy Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 52(3), pages 740-798, September.
    18. Lawrence H. Goulder, 2013. "Markets for Pollution Allowances: What Are the (New) Lessons?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 87-102, Winter.
    19. Merriam Haffar & Cory Searcy, 2018. "Target‐setting for ecological resilience: Are companies setting environmental sustainability targets in line with planetary thresholds?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1079-1092, November.
    20. Roos, Michael W. M., 2015. "The macroeconomics of radical uncertainty," Ruhr Economic Papers 592, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.

    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: Kelly McDougall (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.