Issues And Arguments Concerning Geoengineering

Introduction to Geoengineering

Many in the world are becoming aware of the radical changes happening in the environment concerning climate change and other major environmental crises happening currently. The issues of drastic increase in sea ice in the arctic, droughts have gained attention in media and academic research. Increase in summertime heat waves, fires, hurricanes and extreme weather conditions, increasing acidity and invasion of alien species and species extinction have all attracted deep attention globally. The evidences revolving historical climate changes are well-documented in international levels, with the impacts being felt currently. Many of these changes are attributed to the unprecedented increase in the levels of carbon IV oxide in the atmosphere. It will becoming cumbersome for societies to seek to lower carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions within a time framework which will limit warming. Based on the slow removal time of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it might take many hundreds of years for natural processes to sequester carbon dioxide which have been emitted even if greenhouse gas emitted through anthropogenic activities were immediately stopped. Geoengineering (climate intervention) approaches have been proposed to address some of the climate change effects. This work intends to explore the issues and arguments underpinning geoengineering.

The concept of geoengineering was developed in 1977 by Victor Marchetti who used it to define the potential for disposing excess carbon dioxide in marine ecosystems (Easterbrook, 2007). Since the conception of this term, it has ascended to become an umbrella term for the variety of technological fixes proposed to mitigate climate change in different manners. The concept of geoengineering is classified into two major approaches namely (Fuhr, 2016);

• Solar Radiation Management and
• Carbon Dioxide Removal

Solar radiation management proposals encompasses large scale-applications to either increase the reflective capacity of the earth or (albedo coefficient) which deflects solar radiation itself or deflect small amounts of solar radiation away from the earth. On the other hand, Carbon dioxide removal suggestions seek to alleviate excessive carbon dioxide from the face of the earth and other greenhouse emissions from oceans and the atmosphere.

Armeni and Redgwell (2015) suggest that geoengineering proposals have capacities to partly negate the changes happening to the planet like no other interventions world based on their cost-efficiency and acceptable side effects. In addition, such geoengineering innovations may impose some threats such as diminished recovery of the ozone destruction, changes to precipitation patterns and hydrological cycles, reduced individual motivations and tendencies to curb carbon emissions, and possible unknown social and environmental risks. Up to date, majority of geoengineering innovations have not been critically studied to a reasonable depth to influence wide applicability and therefore traces of uncertainty exists concerning their efficiency towards curbing the world’s worsts challenges; climate change (Corner et al., 2013).

Scientific arguments concerning the strengths of geoengineering have accrued huge attention from academia, media and policy makers. Bala and Gupta (2017) noted the systematic reviews of peoples’ inclination to geoengineering have achieved interest and concern from non-governmental organizations, social groups and public domain, who readily accommodate the technologies or condemn them often before understanding their methods and rationales. Literature review by Boucher et al. (2014) proposed that four major themes surrounds the matter of geoengineering namely; average low familiarity to geoengineering intrigues among the public audience, association of geoengineering with risks which outweighs benefits, low public support to the application of geoengineering technologies with no lifelong support in the future perspective and desires by the public domain to see international community enact a body overseeing both research and future application but with the trust in stakeholders varying by source.

Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM) intends to reflect part of the incoming solar radiations back into space which consequently will cool the planet. These approaches have been termed as cheap, fast and yet imperfect based on the premise they are likely to function and operate rapidly, incur costs of about a few billions annually and likely to offset some changes linked with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore have an ability to induce side effects.

Despite the view that Sunlight Reflection Methods vary, two major variations have attained greater attention namely marine cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Marine cloud brightening seeks to make clouds brighter in the aim of reflecting more sunlight back in space. As the surface temperature cools when cloud passes overhead on a hot summer, it is observed that clods play a role of cooling the planet (Morton, 2015). Marine cloud brightening focuses on cooling the planet by introducing sea spray particles below marine clouds to play a role of cooling the globe. All are formed on the particles which are suspended in the atmosphere. By inducing extra particles, more surface areas will be availed for cloud formation process. The crucial role will be to construct many and smaller cloud drops which will reflect more sunlight and yield rain conditions slowly therefore leading to long-lived clouds.

The other variation which has received huge attention is the stratospheric aerosol geoengineering which imitates the cooling impacts of large volcanic eruptions by putting sulfate aerosols (reflective particles) in the upper atmospheric layer. Engineering field is evaluating the potential side effects on non-sulfate particles. The fact that non-sulfate particles do not occur naturally, make them not easily and clearly understood.

The objectives of geoengineering are numerous and hypothetical models have inspected these objectives through climate model simulations. These objectives encompass maintaining constant global temperatures, offsetting changes in precipitation and slowing down global warming. One major limitation of Sunlight Reflective Method approaches is that they require periodic deployment at a scale proportional to the excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The amount of Sunlight Reflective Method needed would increase provided greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere, which might be as long as many centuries since carbon dioxide constitute a long lifespan in the atmosphere. In addition, upon the sudden discontinuation of SRM methods, its cooling impact would also disappear suddenly and the planet would warm fast as a result of termination effect. The stronger the SRM, the more adverse the possible effects would be upon termination. Evading the tragedy of termination effect will engage gradually ramping down the SRM in line with the carbon dioxide removal methods to lower down carbon quantities in the atmosphere.

Haywood et al. (2015) recognized there are particular climate change impacts SRM might not modify such as ocean acidity, which will continually increase provided higher carbon dioxide. Besides, SRM will not address the carbon dioxide concentrations as a result of ocean processes reactions including fisheries. SRM will not adequately offset global warming based on the view that it acts uniquely on the earth than carbon dioxide. Warming as a result of carbon dioxide influences the planet globally and all times, whereas sunlight varies with geographical latitude and location, day and season. The previous study exhibited that these fluctuations would not simultaneously and effectively suppresses temperature and precipitation shifts. It also becomes harder to conduct an actual compensation between the warming as a result of carbon dioxide and the cooling due to SRM technologies as the carbon dioxide concentration rises up. This therefore creates a need to conceive geoengineering from the context of severe emission reductions.

Carbon dioxide removal methods include negative emissions technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, afforestation, carbon sequestration by algae and direct air capture. These methods seek to extract the carbon from the environment, thus reducing its concentration and therefore reducing the increase in average temperature. DDR approached vary based on how carbon dioxide is sequestrated from the atmosphere and where it is eventually stored. Both ocean-based and land-based strategies have effects beyond national boundaries.

Land based CDR methodologies include land use management, reforestation, afforestation, and avoidance of deforestation (Lin, 2013). Terrestrial ecosystems extracts carbon dioxide through vegetation covers which act as natural carbon sinks. The simple strategies based on protecting and managing vital ecosystems will contribute a lot in naturally assimilating anthropogenic carbon dioxide, therefore reducing its concentration from the atmosphere. Strategies to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide through management of ecosystems are considered to be part of geoengineering. They are immediately available and relatively common and well-known amongst many populations.

Biochar and biomass-affiliated methods involves the natural sequestration of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when terrestrial vegetation grows through the process of photosynthesis. When an organism dies and decomposes a lot of stored carbon the organisms store returns to the atmosphere. There are 4 major forms by which the growth of biomass is utilized to reduce the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide namely (Keith, 2010);

• Land carbon sinks; carbon may be assimilated in-situ in soil or as standing biomass.
• Bioenergy and biofuels; biomass may be harvested and utilized as fuel so that carbon dioxide emitted through combustion is balanced by carbon dioxide in growing energy crops.
• Biomass for sequestration; biomass is harvested and sequestrated as organic matter, for instance by burying crop wastes burying trees or as charcoal.
• Bioenergy with carbon dioxide capture and sequestration (BECS); biomass is harvested and applied as fuel and the resulting carbon captured and sequestrated.

Assimilation of biomass and biocher has been designed to intervene in the natural cycle so that some carbon fixed organically can be stored in soils or elsewhere for more than hundred years. Approaches encompassing burying biomass on land or deep in the ocean require extra energy consumption for transport, synthesis and burying (Lempert & Prosnitz 2011). These requirements may disrupt the aspects of ocean growth, nutrient cycling and the feasibility of ecosystems involved. For instance, the deep oceans may decompose the organic matter and the carbon dioxide emitted percolate to the shallow water unless enough materials were deposited to induce anoxic conditions constituting a major ecosystem disturbance.

Biocher (charcoal) is a product created when organic matter decomposes especially after heating in a zero or low oxygen presence. The decomposition then yields biofuels and biocher. The carbon atoms in charcoal are bonded together more than in plant matter. Biocher on the other side is resistant to decomposition and therefore locks in carbon for longer period of time (Leahy, 2010).

Enhanced weathering is a land and ocean based method for sequestrating excess carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is innately eradicated from the atmosphere after a long period of time spanning beyond thousands of years through the process of weathering whereby carbon and silicon in rocks is dissolved (O’Riordan & Cameron, 2013). Silicon minerals form the most conspicuous elements of the common rocks and they will react with carbon dioxide to form carbonates and by so doing they shall have consumed carbon dioxide. Enhanced weathering approaches have therefore the capacity to lower climate change risk by reducing carbon dioxide emissions or even completely removing it.

Carbon dioxide emitted through either natural or anthropogenic causes experience regular cycle between the atmosphere, biological organisms, ocean, and land. The greater portion of carbon dioxide which readily exchanges between the atmosphere and oceans is in the deep ocean. Carbon dioxide on the ocean surface swiftly exchanges with the while the transfer of carbon dioxide down the deep oceans is relatively slower (Kuramochi et al., 2017). A large portion of carbon dioxide emitted say today will require about 1000 years reaching the deep ocean. Geoengineering has sought to lower this period and increase the rate of carbon exchange between the surface and the deep ocean, by altering the ocean carbon cycles.

As a pack of technological innovations, geoengineering comprises one of the possible solutions towards curbing carbon emission as a result of anthropogenic activities. The most proposals revolve around managing the impacts which revolve around lowering the consumption of fossil fuel which yield greenhouse gases more so carbon dioxide. The mitigation logistics has ascended to become apparent amidst the public domain through the advent of carbon footprint which advocates for individual responsibility towards less carbon emission to the environment. Despite the view that compact public believes the tragedy of carbon dioxide concentration is curbed by stopping or slowing fossil fuel consumptions, there is equally pervasive evidence that public opinion advocates alternative solutions including carbon capture and storage. Such pursuits and solutions do not engage halting the use of fossil fuel but target carbon after emission. Geoengineering is one of such solutions.

In assessing the efficiency of geoengineering strategies, the excellent general measure is their capacity to moderate or reverse the ascending patterns in temperature increase. However, the possible methods under disposal are diverse and aim to address various elements of the climate system by either mitigating greenhouse gas concentrations, or solar radiations. The concept of geoengineering incorporates a wide array of methods such that general statements may be misleading.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategies take effect after a long period of time and therefore might not offer immediate solutions to the ongoing climate crisis but by alleviating greenhouse gases from the environment, they contribute to the basketry of climate change management (Earthscan, 2011).

Solar Radiation Management approaches take effect fast and offer the only prompt option for lowering and slowing down carbon dioxide emission and concentrations in the atmosphere. Solar Radiation Management approaches may not contribute to any reduction in greenhouse gases but indeed they can introduce new risk into the global climate change system. The major distinctions lies on the time span taken to induce intended climate change effects, their impacts on carbon dioxide –related issues and governance issues they raise.

The discussions within the threshold of geoengineering have focused on vital concerns such as risks, side effects, moral hazard, institutional lock-in, geoengineering implementers and moral corruption (Germany & Laplaza, 2017). The ethical concerns surrounding this subject are perceived as a major block to overcome and the vulnerable public has not been appropriately included as equal partners in the formulation and implementation table of the technologies. Contemporary arguments on geoengineering have cited vulnerable populations as a major reason to carry on with research and possible deployment.

Successful deployment of geoengineering technologies is embedded on an inclusive dialogue whereby key concerns are articulated amongst the affected proponents. Based on the perspective that climate engineering is largely pervasive in Europe and the US, particular attention is needed in the rest of the world where populations have been left out in climate research and policy. These countries are otherwise more prone to climate change impacts and therefore a need to incorporate them in policy formulation and development (Lempert & Prosnitz, 2011).

Inclusive approach to geoengineering calls for a broad view of vulnerability which pay particular not only to climatic and physical impacts but also to political, social, ethical, economic and cultural dimensions of vulnerability. To formulate and develop a sound, holistic and inclusive dialogue guiding both initial and evolving governance of SRM the concept of recognition becomes crucial. Recognition has been adopted and applied to various contexts of climate and environmental justices. Dalby (2015) emphasized that recognition and participation parity as major ideals in developing research focusing on geoengineering.

The concept of recognition takes cognizance of moral implication of relations with others and the dangers caused by relations which erode, ignore or denigrate. According to Robock (2014), recognition is a core element of justice as a participatory parity, and that misrecognition hampers people from involving and interacting as peers in social aspects and it spoils the principle of equal moral worth on which its view is founded. Based on these definitions, recognition is vital not only in psychology as a fundamental basis for self-respect but also politically as guiding precept for forms of leadership which is inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Recognition challenges institutionalized patterns of cultural values which chronologically deny other individuals equal status of full partners in social mingling. Burns and Nicholson (2017) conceived recognition as having two prime factors; recognition as a consideration of difference and as engagement.

Whereas recognition invites respect and equal treatment on the basis of shared humanity, engagement requires the affirmation of differences and approves differential responses, policies, and standards founded on these differences. Craik and Burns (2016) acknowledged the difficulty in reconciling both engagement and respect based on the view that fundamental perspective is committed to a neutral set of difference-blind precepts which are rooted in equal dignity. However, if this commitment is basic to the respect perspective, and if it preludes the acknowledgement of difference, then the two concepts become compatible.

In the realm of international scale SRM, recognition which integrates fundamental respect do not necessarily antagonize with one focusing on the consideration of difference. The ideal of participatory parity relies on basic respect and difference-based convictions of recognition which ought to exist in dialectical communication on the subject of geoengineering. The governance of SRM is dependent on both. In practice, the two dimensions presented above interact and misrecognition normally results as a result if failure of both.

Vaughan (2014) presents two cases studies in connection with misrecognition and SRM. The first case is extracted from the exchange at a scientific forum on geoengineering. At the beginning of the forum, participants were provided with unknown subject in the first place. As the discussions ensure, an African scientist critiqued the premises of the model under question as well as the reliability off Western scientific assessments in advantaging the people in the third world countries. An American scientist in reaction responds arguing that the whole concept of geoengineering research was to benefit developing nations. In this context, an African scientist critiques the models’ exclusion of fundamental elements related to the understanding of the effects of geoengineering on the people of Africa and the rest of the developing world. This pursuit is dismissed, giving a vivid impression of less understanding on the interrogator. The questioner’s reaction shows his dissatisfaction with the response (Khan & Grist 2015).

The second case ascends from the electronic discussion group posted geoengineering proponent (Ken Caldeira). Ken seeks to understand whether geoengineering raises ethical issues which are not articulated in historical figures such as Kant, Hume and Aristotle. From a philosophical conception, this posting challenges the application of applied ethics into the contemporary challenges facing the planet (Schellnhuber et al., 2017). Its application is complex and ambiguous. Ironically, limited understanding is applied to marginalize thinkers form geoengineering discussions and ethics. This consequently contravenes the precept of participatory parity that demands the impacted stakeholders partake in consultations as peers.

Solar Radiation Methods (SRM) comprises of various traits which altogether reinforce a need for inclusivity in engagements and governance. Such inclusivity is necessary in all stages especially in geoengineering research. Such inclusivity enhances positive reception and holistic approach to ethical issues of the subject, which consequently arouse the conception of the most viable and responsive geoengineering technologies to contribute into the basketry of climate change reductions and associated multiplier effects (Hamilton, 2013).

Climate models constitute major experimental tools applicable in investigating future fluctuations in climatic changes. Science might not commit in controlled experiments investigating global climate change based on the premise that if the experiments go astray may induce devastating effects on the planet; which therefore necessitate the application of climate models (McLaren, 2017).

The physical climate system comprises of the atmosphere, land, sea-ice and oceans. Due to the advent of electronic computer, it has become possible solving equations revolving around planetary fluid motions and therefore simulates the behavior of climate. Current climate models possess concrete three-dimensional representations of main elements of climate system and the interplays and feedbacks within them. The initial climate models (general circulation models) sorted atmospheric equations of motions thus were called atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs). Current are known as coupled models or coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs).

Early modeling researches on geoengineering models applied AGCMs integrated to simple mixed layer ocean model and carried out equilibrium simulations. Such models did not have a full dynamic ocean model. The mixed-layer ocean permits a simple representation of the relationship between the ocean, sea and sea-ice elements by use of seasonally and spatially prescribed ocean-heat transport and spatially prescribed mixed-layer depth which paves a way for replication of real sea temperatures and sea-ice distributions for existing climate. Base on the view that mixed-layer ocean comprise a depth of approximately 50m, it comes to equilibrium normally after a period of 30 years after climate distortions (McMahon 2017).

Based on the study on first mixed-layer ocean modeling, solar radiation incident on the planet was diminished to balance increased radiative forcing from increasing carbon dioxide concentration. The findings portrayed that irrespective of huge discrepancy in radiative forcing patterns, large scale geoengineering scheme can diminish the seasonal and regional climate fluctuations from anthropogenic emissions (Granoff et al., 2015).

The possible effects of geoengineering are relevant to all regions and countries. Prompt concerns for developing nations involve the possible effects of geoengineering, both anticipated and unanticipated and the extent to which developing countries are integrated as partners in the table of policy formulation and making, development and implementation of the interventions (Liu & Chen, 2015). In some developing countries, the unanticipated results of geoengineering will be inequitable and harmful. For instance, the interconnected monsoons of south, East and South East Asia altogether mold the climates of 20 countries which are inhabited by about half of the world demography. Natural analogues and climate simulations provide useful insights, that climate engineering in particular SRM technologies will negatively influence the monsoonal rains.

In the realm of developing nations, there is clear indication in their absence from the table of geoengineering pursuits and discussions. As the academic research fraternity recognize the need for all nations involvement for the sake of public engagement, public engagement has not critically penetrated the broad field of geoengineering. The little engagement with third world nations has been limited to scientists and experts of the subject (Liu & Chen, 2015).

In addition, international governance and policy and institutions for both deployment and development of geoengineering stand still, therefore putting the third world countries at a disadvantaged pedestal in terms of engagement in policy formulation and decision making. Developing countries and emerging markets may respond differently to the strengths embedding geoengineering. Their inclinations may be instigated by geopolitical affiliations and the effects they expect climate change to bestow alongside economic considerations in modeled interventions. Respective countries will have clear priorities concerning climate management, with considerations to historical and cultural patterns of the respective countries.

Crutzen (2016) proposed that a country’s prowess in technological abilities is a critical factor in determining her willingness to take part in geoengineering research. The technical ability to undertake geoengineering research and interventions also determine the willingness to develop interest into the subject. As a result, support to geoengineering and the ability, personnel and willpower to take part in this subject vary amongst the countries of the world. For geoengineering to portray a future role effectively, it ought to be applied effectively and responsibly and pursue a coordinated and collaborative approach from all counties to derive an agreeable governance structure and decision making processes.

Conclusion

Geoengineering has conceived and proposed as an impeccable technological idea to address the tragedies of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change that is currently devastating the planet. As exhibited in this study, plant-level geoengineering strategies have the capacity to induce remarkable effects both positive and negative. The extensive nature of these effects gives a clear impression that geoengineering constitute possibly new challenges that extend many disciplines. The efficiency of geoengineering techniques remains uncertain with various governance issues remaining unresolved. Besides, the discussions on geoengineering and related policy issues have not articulated a common approach when perceived form the lens of developed and developing nations parities. The elements of inclusivity in matters affecting the globe as this require total cooperation and partnership to influence adoptability and efficiency. As geoengineering seek to revolutionize the domain of climate systems, there is a need to deeply study the approaches applied to determine the ethics embedding these techniques and unravel their viability in safeguarding the planet’s escalating climatic changes.

References

• Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015). International legal and regulatory issues of climate geoengineering governance: rethinking the approach. Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series# 21.
• Bala, G., & Gupta, A. (2017). Geoengineering and India. Current Science, 113(3), 376-377.
• Boucher, O., Forster, P. M., Gruber, N., Ha‐Duong, M., Lawrence, M. G., Lenton, T. M., & Vaughan, N. E. (2014). Rethinking climate engineering categorization in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(1), 23-35.
• Burns, W. and Nicholson, S. (2017) ‘Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): the prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response’, Journal of eEnvironmental studies and sciences 7(4): 527–534 (https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-017-0445-6).
• Craik, A.N. and Burns, W. (2016) Climate engineering under the Paris Agreement: a legal and policy primer. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation (https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/GeoEngineering%20Primer%20-%20Special%20Report.pdf).
• Craik, A.N. and Burns, W. (2016) Climate engineering under the Paris Agreement: a legal and policy primer. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation (https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/GeoEngineering%20Primer%20-%20Special%20Report.pdf).
• Crutzen, P.J. (2016) ‘Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?’, Climatic change 77: 211–219 (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y.pdf).
• Dalby, S. (2015) ‘Geoengineering: the next era of geopolitics?’, Geography compass 9(4): 190–201 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gec3.12195/full).
• Earthscan. Olson, R.L. (2011) Geoengineering for decision makers. Washington, DC: Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Geoengineering_for_Decision_Makers_0.pdf).
• Easterbrook, G. (2007) ‘Global warming: who loses—and who wins’, The Atlantic, April (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/04/global-warming-who-loses-and-who-wins/305698/).
• Fuhr, L. (2016) ‘Geoengineering is not the only answer’, Heinrich Böll Foundation website, 6 December (https://www.boell.de/en/2016/12/06/geoengineering-not-only-answer).
• Granoff, I., Eis, J., McFarland, W. and Hoy, C., with Watson, C., de Battista, G., Marijis, C.,
• Hamilton, C. (2013) Earthmasters: the dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Haywood, J.M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N. and Stephenson, D. (2013) ‘Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall’, Letters, Nature climate change (http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/dbs202/publications/2013/haywood_nature_cc_paper.pdf)
• Keith, D.W. (2010) ‘Geoengineering the climate: history and prospects’, Annual review of energy and the environment 25: 245–285 (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245).
• Keith, D.W. and Wagner G. (2016) ‘Fear of solar geoengineering is healthy – but don’t distort our research’,
• Khan, A. and Grist, G. (2015) Zero poverty, zero emissions: eradicating zero poverty in the climate crisis. Report. London: ODI )https://www.odi.org/publications/9690-zero-poverty-zero-emissions-eradicating-extreme-poverty-climate-crisis).
• Kuramochi T., Fekete H., Hans F., Luna L., Gonzales-Zuniga S., Sterl S., Hagemann M., Hohne N., van Soest H., den Elzen M., Esmeijer K., Roelfsema M., Forsell N. and Turkovska O. (2017). ‘Greenhouse gas mitigation scenarios for major emitting countries: Analysis of current climate policies and mitigation commitments 2017 update’. New Climate Institute, Cologne, Germany.
• Laplaza, A. (2017) ‘The developing world and climate engineering: unevenly affected and underrepresented’, Forum for climate engineering assessment, 26 July (http://ceassessment.org/the-developing-world-and-climate-engineering/).
• Leahy, S. (2010) ‘Climate change: geoengineering for a desperate planet’, Tierramérica, 25 Oct. Rome: Inter Press Service (http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/10/climate-change-geoengineering-for-a-desperate-planet/).
• Lempert, R.L. and Prosnitz, D. (2011) Governing geoengineering research: a political and technical vulnerability analysis of potential near-term options. Technical Report TR846. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation (https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR846.html).
• Lin, A. (2013) ‘Does geoengineering present a moral hazard?’, Ecology law quarterly 40: 673–712 (https://law.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lin/files/ELQ.MoralHazard.pdf).
• Liu, Z. and Chen, Y. (2015) ‘Impacts, risks, and governance of climate engineering’, Advances in Climate Change Research 6: 197–201 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927815000830).
• McLaren, D. (2016) ‘Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar radiation management’, Earth’s future 4(12): 596–602 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000445/abstract).
• McLaren, D. (2017) ‘Whose voice matters in climate geoengineering?’, Forum for climate engineering assessment, 28 August (http://ceassessment.org/voices/).
• McMahon J. (2017) ‘As humans fumble climate challenge, interest grows in geoengineering’, Forbes, 24 September (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/09/24/interest-rises-in-geoengineering-as-humans-fail-to-mitigate-climate-change/).
• Morton, O. (2015) The planet remade: how geoengineering could change the world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• O’Riordan ,T. and Cameron, J. (2013) Interpreting the precautionary principle. Abingdon: Routledge
• Robock, A. (2014b) ‘Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering’, Issues in environmental science and technology 38 (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StratosphericAerosolGeoengineering4.pdf)..
• Schellnhuber, H.J., Whiteman, G., Rockström, J., Hobley, A. and Rahmstorf, S. (2017) ‘Three years to safeguard our climate’, Nature 546: 593–595 (https://www.nature.com/news/three-years-to-safeguard-our-climate-1.22201).