Abstract
Geoengineering – the deliberate manipulation of the climate (more accurately labeled ‘climate engineering’) – is rising rapidly up the policy agenda. A leading discourse frames it as a ‘plan B’ that should be prepared in case political obstacles continue to thwart effective mitigation. Diverse geophysical risks are being considered while debate about political risks of ‘plan B’ have been dominated by worries of ‘moral hazard’ i.e. that preparing climate engineering technologies could undermine mitigation efforts. This article seeks to broaden the debate to other political and security dynamics. It argues that dividing climate policies into two distinct ‘plan A’ and ‘plan B’ has at least three other performative effects: it prioritizes certain fast-working methods such as stratospheric aerosol injection; it assumes this would be politically feasible; and it obscures potential difficulties of pursuing mitigation and climate engineering together. I examine each of these, asking in particular why the politics of climate engineering would be the easier option. I argue that direct and intentional interventions in Earth systems could facilitate securitization by introducing friend-enemy logics, hitherto largely absent from the climate polity – what could be called the ‘security hazard’. Alternative framings that might avoid both hazards are briefly suggested for future research.
| Originalsprog | Engelsk |
|---|---|
| Artikelnummer | 2 |
| Tidsskrift | Security Dialogue |
| Vol/bind | 48 |
| Udgave nummer | 4 |
| Sider (fra-til) | 297-315 |
| Antal sider | 19 |
| ISSN | 0967-0106 |
| DOI | |
| Status | Udgivet - 1 aug. 2017 |
FN’s Verdensmål
Dette resultat bidrager til følgende verdensmål
