Toward Legitimate Governance of Solar Geoengineering Research: A Role for Sub-State Actors

References

• Abbott, K. W., & Bernstein, S. (2015). The high-level political forum on sustainable development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6(3), 222–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., & Hale, T. (2014). Orchestrating global solutions networks: A guide for organizational entrepreneurs. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 9(1–2), 195–212.
   Google Scholar
• Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. The Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 315–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armeni, C., & Redgwell, C. (2015). International legal and regulatory issues of climate geoengineering governance: rethinking the approach (Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series #21). Retrieved from http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper21armeniredgwelltheinternationalcontextrevise-.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Asilomar 2. (2010). Full text of “Asilomar 2” Statement. Science | AAAS. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/03/full-text-asilomar-2-statement
   Google Scholar
• Bäckstrand, K., & Kuyper, J. (2017). The democratic legitimacy of orchestration: The UNFCCC, non-state actors, and transnational climate governance. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 764–788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., & Vaughan, N. E. (2016). Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. Public Understanding of Science, 25(3), 269–286. doi:10.1177/0963662514548628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework”. Regulation and Governance, 1, 347–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force on Climate Remediation Research. (2011). Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Bodansky, D. (1999). The legitimacy of international governance: A coming challenge for international environmental law? American Journal of International Law, 93, 596–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, W. C. G., & Flegal, J. A. (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. Print.
   Google Scholar
• Burns, W. C. G., & Nicholson, S. (2017). Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage (BECCS): The prospects and challenges of an emerging climate policy response. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 7(4), 527–534.
   Google Scholar
• Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15, 502–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013a). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23, 92–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013b). Maintaining climate change experiments: Urban political ecology and the everyday reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 1934–1948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, M., & Pauw, W. P. (2014). A global framework for climate action (gfca)-orchestrating non-state and subnational initiatives for more effective global climate governance (German Development Institute Discussion Paper 34).
   Google Scholar
• Chan, S., Brandi, C., & Bauer, S. (2016). Aligning transnational climate action with international climate governance: The road from Paris. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(2), 238–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., & Xin, Y. (2017). Implications of geoengineering under the 1.5 °C target: Analysis and policy suggestions. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8, 123–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhetri, N., Chong, D., Conca, K., Falk, R., Gillespie, A., Gupta, A., … Nicholson, S. (2018). Governing solar radiation management. Washington, DC: Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, American University.
   Google Scholar
• Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Corner, A., Parkhill, K., Pidgeon, N., & Vaughan, N. E. (2013). Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 938–947. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craik, A. N. (2017). Developing a national strategy for climate engineering research in Canada. Center for International Governance of Innovation (Working Paper No. 153).
   Google Scholar
• Craik, N., Blackstock, J., & Hubert, A. M. (2013). Regulating geoengineering research through domestic environmental protection frameworks: Reflections on the recent Canadian ocean fertilization case. Carbon & Climate Law Review, 7(2), 117–124.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, C., & Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics of fracking. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 221–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esty, D. (2006). Good governance at the supranational scale: Globalizing administrative law. Yale Law Journal, 115, 1490–1561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, Print. 15(2), 226–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flegal, J. A., & Gupta, A. (2018). Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 45–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardiner, S. (2011). Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: A Commentary on the values of the royal society report. Environmental Values, 20(2), 163–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, D. (2013). Between local innovation and global impact: Cities, networks, and the governance of climate change. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 19(3), 288–307.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, D. J., & Johnson, C. A. (2017). The orchestration of global urban climate governance: Conducting power in the post-Paris climate regime. Environmental Politics, 26(4), 694–714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, A., & Moller, I. (in press). De facto governance: How authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance. Environmental Politics.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hale, T., & Rogers, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. The Review of International Organizations, 9(1), 59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, C. (2013). Earth masters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heazle, M., & Kane, J. (2015). Policy legitimacy, science and political authority: Knowledge and action in liberal democracies. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Heilmann, S., Shih, L., & Hofem, A. (2017). National planning and local technology zones: Experimental governance in china’s torch programme. The China Quarterly, 26, 896–919.
   Google Scholar
• Hildén, M., Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2017). Special issue on experimentation for climate change solutions editorial: The search for climate change and sustainability solutions - The promise and the pitfalls of experimentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 169, 1–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Horton, J. B. (2015). The emergency framing of solar geoengineering: Time for a different approach. The Anthropocene Review, 2(2), 147–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horton, J. B., & Reynolds, J. L. (2016). The international politics of climate engineering: A review and prospectus for international relations. International Studies Review, 18(3), 438–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubert, A.-M. (2017). Code of conduct for responsible geoengineering research. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/grgproject/files/grgproject/revised-code-of-conduct-for-geoengineering-research-2017-hubert.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018, October 6). Global warming of 1.5 ºC. UNEP and WMO. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
   Google Scholar
• Jamieson, D. (1996). Ethics and intentional climate change. Climatic Change, 33(3), 323–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jinnah, S. (2018). Why govern climate engineering?: A Preliminary framework for demand-based governance. International Studies Review., 20(2), 272–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Schoenefeld, J., Van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (2018). Governing climate change polycentrically. In A. Jordan, D. Huitema, H. Van Asselt, & J. Forster (Eds.), Governing climate change: polycentricity in action? (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, I. D., & Oppenheimer, M. (2014). On the design of an international governance framework for geoengineering. Global Environmental Politics., 14(2), 45–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, J. C. S. (2017). Coordinated action against climate change: A New world symphony. Issues in Science and Technology, 33, 3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lövbrand, E., Pielke, R., & Beck, S. (2011). A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(4), 474–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, P., & Szerszynski, B. (2013). Living the global social experiment: An analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 465–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahajan, A., Tingley, D., & Wagner, G. (2018). Fast, cheap, and imperfect? US public opinion about solar geoengineering. Environmental Politics, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McFadgen, B., & Huitema, D. (2018). Experimentation at the interface of science and policy: A multi-case analysis of how policy experiments influence political decision-makers. Policy Sciences, 51(2):161–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinnon, C. (in press). Sleepwalking into Lock-In: Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research. Environmental Politics.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrow, D. R., Kopp, R. E., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Political legitimacy in decisions about experiments in solar radiation management. In C. G. William, Burns, & A. Strauss (Eds.), Climate change geoengineering: Philosophical perspectives, legal issues, and governance frameworks (pp. 146–167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Gene drives on the horizon: advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/23405
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2015a). Climate intervention: Carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration. Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2015b). Climate intervention: Reflecting sunlight to cool earth. Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson, S., Jinnah, S., & Gillespie, A. (2018). Solar radiation management: A proposal for immediate polycentric governance. Climate Policy, 18(1), 322–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Overdevest, C., & Zeitlin, J. (2014). Assembling an experimentalist regime: Transnational governance interactions in the forest sector. Regulation & Governance, 8(1), 22–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parson, E. A., & Ernst, L. N. (2013). International governance of climate engineering. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14(1), 307–337.
   Google Scholar
• Parson, E. A., & Keith, D. W. (2013). End the deadlock on governance of geoengineering research. Science, 339, 1278–1279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., & Vaughan, N. (2013). Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the spice project. Nature Climate Change, 3(5), 451. doi:10.1038/nclimate1807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pielke, J. R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Preston, C. J. (2013). Ethics and geoengineering: Reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(1), 23–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston, C. J. (2018). The synthetic age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, S. (2003). Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Science and Public Policy, 30(3), 163–170.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, S. (2004). The novelty trap: Why does institutional learning about new technologies seem so difficult? Industry and Higher Education, 18(6), 349–355.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, S., Heyward, C., Kruger, T., Pidgeon, N., Redgwell, C., & Savulescu, J. (2013). The Oxford principles. Climatic Change, 121(3), 499–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. (2015). A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern. Anthropocene Review, 2(2), 174–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. L., Jorge, L., Contreras, J., & Sarnoff, D. (2018). Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9, e512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., … Meinshausen, M. (2016). Paris agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534(7609), 631–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimental governance In D. Levi-Faur ed., The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 169–183). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sandler, T. (2018). Collective action and geoengineering. The Review of International Organizations., 13(1), 105–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-J., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(12), 732–734.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J. (2016). Geoengineering as collective experimentation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(3), 851–869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J. (2017, April 7). Self-driving cars will only work when we accept autonomy is a myth. The guardian, sec. Science. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/apr/07/autonomous-vehicles-will-only-work-when-they-stop-pretending-to-be-autonomous
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugiyama, M., Asayama, S., Ishii, A., Kosugi, T., John, C., Moore, J. L., … Xia, L. (2017). The Asia-Pacific’s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate. Climatic Change, 143(1–2), 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svoboda, T., Buck, H. J., & Suarez, P. (2018). Climate engineering and human rights. Environmental Politics, 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkaly, C., Nicholson, S., Livingston, D., & Thompson, M. (2017). Climate engineering clearinghouse meeting report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://ceassessment.org/fcea-reports/climate-engineering-clearinghouse/
   Google Scholar
• US GAO. (2010). Climate change: A coordinated strategy could focus federal geoengineering research and inform governance efforts. GAO-10-903. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903
   Google Scholar
• Van Oudheusden, M. (2011). Questioning ‘participation’: A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 673–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vito, C. (2018). State biotechnology oversight: The juncture of technology, law, and public policy. Maine Law Review, 45(2), 329–383.
   Google Scholar
• Winickoff, D. E., & Brown, M. B. (2013). Time for a government advisory committee for geoengineering research. Issues in Science and Technology, 29, 79–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winickoff, D. E., Flegal, J. A., & Asrat, A. (2015). Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change, 5(7), 627.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar