The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. / Corry, Olaf.
In: Security Dialogue, Vol. 48, No. 4, 2, 2017, p. 297-315.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The international politics of geoengineering:
T2 - The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change
AU - Corry, Olaf
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Geoengineering technologies aim to make large-scale and deliberate interventions in the climate system possible. A typical framing is that researchers are exploring a ‘Plan B’ in case mitigation fails to avert dangerous climate change. Some options are thought to have the potential to alter the politics of climate change dramatically, yet in evaluating whether they might ultimately reduce climate risks, their political and security implications have so far not been given adequate prominence. This article puts forward what it calls the ‘security hazard’ and argues that this could be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, ultimately, to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of geoengineering rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a generally pacific international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered world weather events become something certain states can be made directly responsible for, this may also negatively affect prospects for ‘Plan A’, i.e. further obstruct an effective global agreement on mitigation.
AB - Geoengineering technologies aim to make large-scale and deliberate interventions in the climate system possible. A typical framing is that researchers are exploring a ‘Plan B’ in case mitigation fails to avert dangerous climate change. Some options are thought to have the potential to alter the politics of climate change dramatically, yet in evaluating whether they might ultimately reduce climate risks, their political and security implications have so far not been given adequate prominence. This article puts forward what it calls the ‘security hazard’ and argues that this could be a crucial factor in determining whether a technology is able, ultimately, to reduce climate risks. Ideas about global governance of geoengineering rely on heroic assumptions about state rationality and a generally pacific international system. Moreover, if in a climate engineered world weather events become something certain states can be made directly responsible for, this may also negatively affect prospects for ‘Plan A’, i.e. further obstruct an effective global agreement on mitigation.
U2 - 10.1177/0967010617704142
DO - 10.1177/0967010617704142
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 29386754
VL - 48
SP - 297
EP - 315
JO - Security Dialogue
JF - Security Dialogue
SN - 0967-0106
IS - 4
M1 - 2
ER -
ID: 167849215