Prospects for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on climate engineering

References

• Adger, W., et al., 2014. Human security. In: C.B. Field, et al., eds. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 755–791.
   Google Scholar
• Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention, 2010. Participant list. Available from: http://climate.org/archive/resources/climate-archives/conferences/asilomar/participant-list.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R., 2016. A sociotechnical framework for governing climate engineering. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41 (2), 135–162. doi:10.1177/0162243915591855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R., et al., 2013. ‘Opening up’ geoengineering appraisal: multi-criteria mapping of options for tackling climate change. Global Environmental Change, 23, 926–937. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R., Lezaun, J., and Palmer, J., 2017. Public perceptions of geoengineering research governance: an experimental deliberative approach. Global Environmental Change, 45, 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B., 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1, 347–371. doi:10.1111/rego.2007.1.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, C., et al., 2017. Public perception of climate engineering and carbon capture and storage in Germany: survey evidence. Climate Policy, 18 (4), 471–484. doi:10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, W. and Flegal, J., 2015. Climate geoengineering and the role of public deliberation: a comment on the US national academy of sciences’ recommendations on public participation. Climate Law, 5, 252–294.
   Google Scholar
• Busch, L., 2014. Governance in the age of global markets: challenges, limits, and consequences. Agriculture and Human Values, 31 (3), 513–523. doi:10.1007/s10460-014-9510-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C2G2, n.d. Governing geoengineering overview. Accessed from: https://www.c2g2.net/governing-geoengineering/.
   Google Scholar
• Conca, K., 2006. Governing water. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• DeNardis, L. and Raymond, M., 2013. Thinking clearly about multistakeholder internet governance. GigaNet annual symposium, 14 November 2013, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Bali, Indonesia.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Defense Fund, n.d. Our position on geoengineering. Available from: https://www.edf.org/climate/our-position-geoengineering.
   Google Scholar
• Foley, R.D.G. and Sarewitz, D., 2015. Toward the anticipatory governance of climate engineering. Available from: https://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2015/02/24/toward-the-anticipatory-governance-of-geoengineering-working-paper/.
   Google Scholar
• Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, n.d. Climate Engineering and Conservation Timeline. Available from: http://ceassessment.org/climate-engineering-and-conservation-timeline/.
   Google Scholar
• Forum of Climate Engineering Assessment, n.d. Who we are. Available from: http://ceassessment.org/who-we-are/.
   Google Scholar
• Fransen, L. and Kolk, A., 2007. Global rule-setting for business: a critical analysis of multistakeholder standards. Organization, 14 (5), 667–684. doi:10.1177/1350508407080305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrard, J. and Kowarsch, M., 2010. If at first you don’t succeed: evaluating stakeholder engagement in global environmental assessments. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 235–243. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.02.007.
   Google Scholar
• Gaventa, G. and McGee, R., 2013. The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, 31 (s1), s3–s28. doi:10.1111/dpr.12017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasbergen, P., 2011. Mechanisms of private meta-governance: an analysis of global private governance for sustainable development. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances, 2 (3), 189–206. doi:10.1504/IJSBA.2011.040886.
   Google Scholar
• Global Development Incubator, 2015. More than the sum of its parts: making multi-stakeholder initiatives work. Available from: https://globaldevincubator.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Global Witness, 2014. Deadly environment: the dramatic rise in killings of environmental and land defenders. London: Global Witness.
   Google Scholar
• Hemmati, M., 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. London: EarthScan.
   Google Scholar
• IASS, 2014. Climate engineering conference 2014. Potsdam: IASS.
   Google Scholar
• IASS, 2017. Climate engineering conference 2017. Potsdam: IASS.
   Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S., 2018. Why govern climate engineering? A preliminary framework for demand-based governance. International Studies Review, 20 (2), 272–282. doi:10.1093/isr/viy022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E., 2004. Managing uncertainties in networks. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merk, C., et al., 2015. Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection. Climatic Change, 130 (2), 299–312. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milan, S. and Hintz, A., 2014. In multi-stakeholderism we trust: on the limits of the multistakeholder debate. Blog post to CGCS media wire, September 19. Available from: http://www.global.asc.upenn.edu/in-multistakeholderism-we-trust-on-the-limits-of-the-multistakeholder-debate/.
   Google Scholar
• Miller-Dawkins, M., 2014. How can you tell whether a multi-stakeholder initiative is a total waste of time? Blog post to from poverty to power. Available from: https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/how-can-you-tell-whether-a-multi-stakeholder-initiative-is-a-total-waste-of-time/ [Accessed 10 March 2014].
   Google Scholar
• Muro, M. and Jeffrey, P., 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51 (3), 325–344. doi:10.1080/09640560801977190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, R., 2011. Geoengineering for decision makers. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center.
   Google Scholar
• Parson, E., 2017. Starting the dialogue on climate engineering governance: a world commission. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation, Policy Brief: Fixing Climate Governance Series, No. 8.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, C., 2013. Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 23–37. doi:10.1002/wcc.198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman, A., et al., 2018. Comment: developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature, 556, 22–24. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-03917-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichow, A., 2016. Risk, uncertainty, and learning in nanomaterials regulation: an analytical framework. The European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7 (3), 502–516. doi:10.1017/S1867299X00006048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, T., 2004. Transnational governance and legitimacy. Paper presented at the ECPR standing group on international relations conference, 9–12 September, The Hague, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Rustad, S., Le Billon, P., and Lujala, P., 2017. Has the extractive industries transparency initiative been a success? Identifying and evaluating EITI goals. Resources Policy, 51, 151–162. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S., and Kaan, C., 2009. Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review, 11 (3), 451–474. doi:10.1111/misr.2009.11.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schouten, G. and Glasbergen, P., 2011. Creating legitimacy in global private governance: the case of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics, 70, 1891–1899. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sovacool, B. and Andrews, N., 2015. Does transparency matter? Evaluating the governance impacts of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Azerbaijan and Liberia. Resources Policy, 45, 183–192. doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2015.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley Foundation, 2016. A multistakeholder governance agenda: what are the opportunities? Report of the 57th strategy for peace conference, 26–28 October Warrenton, VA. Muscatine, IA: Stanley Foundation
   Google Scholar
• Stapleton, P., 2016. From mad cows to GMOs: the side effects of modernization. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7 (3), 517–531. doi:10.1017/S1867299X0000605X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Welp, M., eds, 2006. Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wampler, B., 2013. Participation, transparency and accountability: innovations in South Korea, Brazil, and the Philippines. Report for the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT). http://www.fiscaltransparency.net/
   Google Scholar
• Welp, M., et al., 2016. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Global Environmental Change, 16, 170–181. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.12.002.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, P., 2016. Emissions reduction: scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530 (7589), 153–155. doi:10.1038/530153a.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winickoff, D., Flegal, J.A., and Asrat, A., 2015. Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change, 5, 627–634. doi:10.1038/nclimate2632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar