In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging ‘social constitution’ of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: That the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces.
CooperM, 2010, “Turbulent worlds: Financial markets and environmental crisis”Theory, Culture and Society27(2–3) 167–190
5.
CoxJ, 2002Storm Watchers: The Turbulent History of Weather Prediction from Franklin's Kite to El Nino (John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ)
6.
CresseyD, 2012, “Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents”Nature485429
7.
EdwardsP, 2010A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data and the Politics of Global Warming (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
8.
ETC, 2010Geopiracy: The Case against Geoengineering Action on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, Ottawa
9.
European Environment Agency, 2001Late Lessons from Early Warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000 (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg)
10.
GalarragaMSzerszynskiB, 2012, “Making climates: Solar radiation management and the ethics of fabrication”, in Engineering the Climate: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management Ed. PrestonC, (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) pp 221–235
JohnsonJaka LatourB, 1988, “Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer”Social Problems35298–310
17.
KlepperGRickeisW, 2012, “The real economics of climate engineering”Economics Research International doi: 10.1155/2012/316564
18.
KrohnWWeingartP, 1987, “Commentary: Nuclear power as a social experiment-European political ‘fall out’ from the Chernobyl meltdown”Science, Technology, and Human Values1252–58
19.
McClellanJKeithDAptJ, 2012, “Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems”Environmental Research Letters7, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019
20.
MacnaghtenPSzerszynskiB, 2013, “Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on geoengineering and its implications for governance”Global Environmental Change23465–174
OlsonRL, 2011Geoengineering for Decision MakersScience and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
23.
OlsonRL, 2012, “Soft geoengineering: A gentler approach to addressing climate change”Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development54 (5) 29–39
24.
PielkeR, 2010The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming (Basic Books, New York)
25.
PrykeM, 2007, “Geomoney: An option on frost, going long on clouds”Geoforum38576–588
26.
RaynerSRedgwellCSauvulescuJPidgeonNKrugerT, 2010Draft Principles for the Conduct of Geoengineering Research (the ‘Oxford Principles’) reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation of Geoengineering Fifth Report of Session 2009–2010, HC221, 29–30, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf
27.
RobockABunzlMKravitzBStenchikovGL, 2010, “A test for geoengineering?”Science327 (5965) 530–531
28.
Royal Society, 2009Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (The Royal Society, London)
29.
SRMGI, 2011, “Solar radiation management: The governance of research”, Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (The Royal Society, London)
