The Political Economy of Geoengineering as Plan B: Technological Rationality, Moral Hazard, and New Technology

ABSTRACT

Geoengineering would mask and reproduce capital’s contradictory needs to self-expand, on the one hand, and maintain a stable climate system, on the other. The Plan B frame, which presents geoengineering as a back-up plan to address climate change in case there is a failure to sufficiently reduce emissions (Plan A), is one means to depict this condition to the public and is a product of, and appeals to, a prevalent ‘technological rationality’. Despite its misleading simplicity, logical flaws, and irrational rationality, the Plan B frame is a relatively valid representation of geoengineering in current political-economic conditions. Although the Plan B frame will gain traction because Plan A is too expensive in the short term and does not serve powerful interests, there are alternative social futures in which technology could be used to address climate change in ways that preserve the environment and reduce social risks.

KEYWORDS:

• Solar radiation management
• stratospheric sulfate injection
• framing
• Frankfurt School
• Marcuse
• technology studies

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on Contributors

Ryan Gunderson, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Sociology and Social Justice Studies in the Department of Sociology and Gerontology at Miami University. His current research projects concern the potential effectiveness of proposed solutions to environmental problems; the social dimensions and environmental impacts of technology; and the renewal of classical and mid-twentieth century sociological theory.

Diana Stuart, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Sustainable Communities Program in the School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability at Northern Arizona University. Her research examines environmental and social issues in industrial agriculture and how to transition to a more sustainable food system. Her work has explored ways to increase wild biodiversity, reduce fertiliser pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and support animal welfare.

Brian Petersen, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Planning and Recreation at Northern Arizona University. His research and published work focuses on climate change adaptation and landscape level conservation. His work draws on both social and natural science perspectives to interrogate contemporary natural resource and environmental challenges.

Some Recent Publications

Stuart, Diana, Ryan Gunderson, and Brian Petersen. Forthcoming. Climate Change and the Polanyian Counter-movement: Carbon Markets or Degrowth? New Political Economy.

Gunderson, Ryan, Diana Stuart, and Brian Petersen. 2018 Ideological Obstacles to Effective Climate Policy: The Greening of Markets, Technology, and Growth. Capital & Class. 42(1):133–160.

Gunderson, Ryan. 2017. Ideology Critique for the Environmental Social Sciences: What Reproduces the Treadmill of Production? Nature and Culture 12(3):263–289.

Gunderson, Ryan and Sun-Jin Yun. 2017. South Korean Green Growth and the Jevons Paradox: An Assessment with Democratic and Degrowth Policy Recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production 144:239–247.

Gunderson, Ryan. 2016. Environmental Sociology and the Frankfurt School 2: Ideology, Techno-science, Reconciliation. Environmental Sociology 2(1):64–76.

Stuart, Diana. 2016. Crossing the “Great Divide” in Practice: Theoretical Approaches for Sociology in Interdisciplinary Environmental Research. Environmental Sociology 2(2): 118–131.

Carolan, Michael and Diana Stuart. 2016. Get Real: On Climate Change and all that ‘It’ Entails. Sociologia Ruralis 56 (1): 74–95.

Notes

1. For an enlightening take on geoengineering governance drawing from Feenberg’s critical theory of technology, see Sikka (2012b).

2. However, it is worth noting that even the equity-based justifications for SRM research tend to adopt a ‘expert-driven, outcome-oriented, and risk-based understanding of equity’ (Flegal and Gupta 2018, p. 56), or, as Marcuse would put it, must amend the concept of justice to fit the one-dimensional logic of technological reason.

3. Marcuse’s notion of a new science and technology is often discussed alongside Habermas’ ([1968] 1970) criticisms. This has been written about extensively elsewhere (e.g. Agger, 1976, Alford, 1985, Feenberg, 1996, Vogel, 1996, ch. 5).