For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
452
views
101
references
 Top references
cited by
3
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    1
    shares
      510
      similar
       All similar

      If you have found this article useful and you think it is important that researchers across the world have access, please consider donating, to ensure that this valuable collection remains Open Access.

      Prometheus is published by Pluto Journals, an Open Access publisher. This means that everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles from our international collection of social science journals. Furthermore Pluto Journals authors don’t pay article processing charges (APCs).

      scite_

      Prometheus

      Volume 38, Issue 1
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Techno-moral change through solar geoengineering: How geoengineering challenges sustainability

      Published
      research-article
      Author(s):
      Publication date Pub:
      Journal: Prometheus
      Publisher: Pluto Journals
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            This article brings a new perspective to the ethical debate on geoengineering through stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), incorporating the emerging techno-moral change scholarship into the discussion surrounding sustainability. The techno-moral change approach can help us understand different ways in which technology might shape society. First, it helps highlight how values and norms are interrelated. Second, it shows that techno-moral change can happen even if the technology is in no way realized. Through the introduction of two techno-moral vignettes, two diametrically opposed ways in which SAI forces us to rethink sustainability and our relationship with nature are suggested. SAI could lead to a situation of entrenchment, wherein sustainability as a norm is undermined, or transformation where the necessity of acting according to sustainability is highlighted.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            Journal ID (doi): 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0082
            Title: Prometheus
            Abbreviated Title: PROM
            Publisher: Pluto Journals
            ISSN (Electronic): 1470-1030
            Publication date Pub: 01 June 2022
            Publication date Collection: 2022
            Volume: 38
            Issue: 1
            Electronic Location Identifier: prometheus.38.1.0082
            Author notes

            Accepting Editor: Steffen Steinert

            Article
            DOI: 10.13169/prometheus.38.1.0082
            SO-VID: 9102052e-914e-4ff3-aa75-b1a9d5fe39bc
            Copyright ©
            License:

            All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles published in the journal are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

            History
            Page count
            Pages: 16
            Categories
            Subject: Research papers

            ScienceOpen disciplines: Computer science,Arts,Social & Behavioral Sciences,Law,History,Economics

            References

            1. (2019) ‘Sustainability’ in (ed.) Critical Terms in Futures Studies, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland, pp.291–7.

            2. (2021) ‘Practices of sustainability and the enactment of their natures/cultures: ecosystem services, rights of nature, and geoengineering’, Social Science Information, 60, 2, pp.168–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018421998947.

            3. (2019) ‘Futures of sustainability as modernization, transformation, and control: a conceptual framework’, Sustainability Science, 14, 4, pp.1015–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00671-2.

            4. (2010) ‘Preemption, precaution, preparedness: anticipatory action and future geographies’, Progress in Human Geography, 34, 6, pp.777–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510362600.

            5. (2014) Social Movements, Experiments in Living, and Moral Progress: Case Studies from Britain’s Abolition of Slavery, Lindley Lecture, University of Kansas, available at https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/14787 (accessed March 2022).

            6. (2013) Before Bioethics: A History of American Medical Ethics from the Colonial Period to the Bioethics Revolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            7. (2019) The Structure of Moral Revolutions: Studies of Changes in the Morality of Abortion, Death, and the Bioethics Revolution, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

            8. (2010) ‘Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: a scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology’, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4, 2, pp.1–38. https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1098.

            9. (2012) ‘The case for climate engineering research: an analysis of the “arm the future” argument’, Climatic Change, 111, 2, pp.473–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0207-5.

            10. (2005) ‘Artifacts as social agents’ in (eds) Inside the Politics of Technology, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp.61–84.

            11. (2018) ‘The strategic role of technology in a good society’, Technology in Society, 52, C, pp.39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.02.002.

            12. (1987) Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations, New York.

            13. (2014) ‘Gender and geoengineering’, Hypatia, 29, 3, pp.651–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12083.

            14. (2014) ‘Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in’, WIREs Climate Change, 5, 5, pp.649–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.296.

            15. (2021) “Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax’, Climatic Change, 165, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03009-z.

            16. (1980) The Social Control of Technology, Frances Pinter, London.

            17. (2006) ‘Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?’ Climatic Change, 77, 3–4, pp.211–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.

            18. (2013) ‘Appraising weak and strong sustainability: searching for a middle ground,’ Consilience, 1, pp.111–24.

            19. (1996) ‘Environment sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology’, Environmental Politics, 5, 3, pp.401–28.

            20. (2019) The Politics of the Anthropocene, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

            21. (1971) ‘Impact of population growth’, Science, 171, 3977, pp.1212–17.

            22. European Commission, (2019) The European Green Deal, Brussels, COM 640, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640&from=EN (accessed March 2022).

            23. (2016) ‘Why geoengineering is not “Plan B”’ in , Climate Justice and Geoengineering, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham MD, pp.15–31.

            24. (2020) ‘What do we have to lose? Offloading through moral technologies: moral struggle and progress’, Science Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00099-y.

            25. (2012) ‘Geo-engineering, governance, and social-ecological systems: critical issues and joint research needs’, Ecology and Society, 17, 1. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269023.

            26. (2010) ‘Is “arming the future” with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Some doubts about the ethics of intentionally manipulating the climate system’ in (eds) Climate Ethics: Essential Readings, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.284-312.

            27. (2018) ‘Collingridge and the dilemma of control: towards responsible and accountable innovation’, Research Policy, 47, 1, pp.61–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012.

            28. (2015) ‘Technology assessment and design for values’ in (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, Springer, Dordrecht, pp.67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_4.

            29. (2013a) Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, Yale University Press, New Haven.

            30. (2013b) ‘No, we should not just “at least do the research”’, Nature News, 496, 7444, p.139. https://doi.org/10.1038/496139a.

            31. (2014) ‘Ethical anxieties about geoengineering’ in (ed.) Ethics and Emerging Technologies, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp.439–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137349088_29.

            32. (1977) The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays, Garland Publishers, New York.

            33. (2015) ‘Capturing the imaginary: vanguards, visions and the synthetic biology revolution’ in (eds) Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond, Routledge, New York, pp.33–55.

            34. (2018) ‘A brief history of IPAT’, Journal of Population and Sustainability, 2, 2, pp.66–74.

            35. (1974) ‘Human population and the global environment: population growth, rising per capita material consumption, and disruptive technologies have made civilization a global ecological force’, American Scientist, 62, 3, pp.282–92.

            36. (2016) ‘Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor’ in (ed.) Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD, pp.79–92.

            37. (2011) Techno-Fix: Why Technology won’t Save us or the Environment, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada.

            38. (2014) Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering, Wiley, Hoboken NJ.

            39. (2009) ‘The fate of the Greenland ice sheet in a geoengineered, high CO2 world’, Environmental Research Letters, 4, 4. 045109. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045109.

            40. (2008) Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806186.

            41. (eds) (2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

            42. (2001) ‘The impact of humans on the nitrogen cycle, with focus on temperate arable agriculture’, Plant and Soil, 228, 1, pp.3–15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004870606003.

            43. (1984) The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

            44. (2020) The Carbon Inequality Era: An Assessment of the Global Distribution of Consumption Emissions among Individuals from 1990 to 2015 and Beyond, research report, Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam International, Oxford.

            45. (2001) ‘Geoengineering’, Nature, 409, 6818, p.420. https://doi.org/10.1038/35053208.

            46. (2013) A Case for Climate Engineering, MIT Press., Cambridge MA.

            47. (2004) ‘Ethics in technological culture: a programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29, 1, pp.3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259188.

            48. (2017) Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime, John Wiley & Sons, London.

            49. (2013) The Limits to Growth (1972): The Future of Nature, Yale University Press, New Haven. http://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.12987/9780300188479-012/html.

            50. (2016) ‘Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts’, Environmental Research Letters, 11, 5, 054009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009.

            51. (2015) The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World, Granta, London.

            52. (2020) ‘The buying time argument within the solar radiation management discourse’, Applied Sciences, 10, 13, paper 4637. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134637.

            53. (2020) ‘Disruptive innovation and moral uncertainty’, NanoEthics, 14, pp.259–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-020-00375-3.

            54. (2022) ‘Moral uncertainty in technomoral change: bridging the explanatory gap’, Perspectives on Science, 18 January.

            55. (2017) ‘Sulfur injections for a cooler planet’, Science, 357, 6348, pp.246–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3317.

            56. (2020) ‘The ethics of geoengineering: a literature review’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 6, pp.3069–3119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00258-6.

            57. (2018) ‘The risk of termination shock from solar geoengineering’, Earth’s Future, 6, 3, pp.456–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000735.

            58. (2018) ‘Paradigms and paradoxes: the futures of growth and degrowth’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 38, 11/12, pp.1133–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-03-2018-0035.

            59. (2008) The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. 2: Hegel and Marx, Routledge, London

            60. (2013) ‘Ethics and geoengineering: reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4, 1, pp.23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.198.

            61. (2016) Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham MD.

            62. (1957) ‘Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades’, Tellus, 9, 1, pp.18–27.

            63. (2018) Futures, Visions, and Responsibility: An Ethics of Innovation, Springer, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22684-8.

            64. (2019) ‘Fixing the climate? How geoengineering threatens to undermine the SDGs and climate justice’, Development, 62, 1–4, pp.29–36. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-019-00211-6.

            65. et al. (2009) Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, Royal Society, London. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf.

            66. (2018) ‘Legitimacy and non-domination in solar radiation management research’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21, 3, pp.341–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562528.

            67. et al. (2011) ‘The anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship’, AMBIO, 40, 7, pp.739–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0185-x.

            68. (2015) Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering, Taylor & Francis, Milton Park. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/delft/detail.action?docID=1975232.

            69. (2018) ‘The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to reduce climate injustice’, Journal of Global Ethics, 14, 3, pp.353–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2018.1552180.

            70. (2013) ‘Nanotechnology and technomoral change’, Ethics & Politics, 15, 1, pp.200–19.

            71. (2012) ‘Risk and soft impacts’ in (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory, Springer, Dordrecht pp.1049–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_42.

            72. (2009) ‘Exploring techno-moral change: the case of the obesity pill’ in (eds) Evaluating New Technologies: Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Development, pp.119–38, Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2229-5_9.

            73. (2020) ‘Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11, 5, paper e666. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.666.

            74. (2004) Modern Social Imaginaries, Duke University Press, Durham NC.

            75. (2019) ‘Geoengineering and sustainability’, Environmental Politics, 28, 3, pp.460–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1449602.

            76. et al. (2020a) “Reaching 1.5 and 2.0°C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering’, Earth System Dynamics, 11, 3, pp.579–601. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020.

            77. (2018) ‘Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination’, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 3, pp. 475–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0.

            78. (2011) Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

            79. (2015) Thinking like a Mall: Environmental Philosophy after the End of Nature, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

            80. (2021) Geoengineering: The Gamble, Polity Press, Cambridge.

            81. (1966) ‘Can technology replace social engineering?’ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22, 10, pp.4–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1966.11454993.

            82. (2018) ‘Indigeneity in geoengineering discourses: some considerations’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 21, 3, pp.289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2018.1562529.

            83. (1980) ‘Do artifacts have politics?’ Daedalus, 109, 1, pp.121–36.

            Comments

            Comment on this article