Articulating Geoengineering: Identifying an Understanding of Geoengineering Technology Through the Crutzen +10 Special Issue Forum

Abstract

This article explores intertextuality, research questions, and arguments scientists use to articulate the legitimacy of geoengineering practices as “good science.” I employ critical discourse analysis to draw out patterns in articles from an invited special forum about the validity of geoengineering technology as a solution to climate change. Articulation theory guides my study of how scientists define what counts as “good science” by analyzing how geoengineering scientists legitimize their research as methodologically strong and beneficial to society. This project serves as a first step in clarifying how scientific debate influences broader circles and the potential social impacts of these debates.

Keywords

climate change discourse analysis science communication geoengineering articulation theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anshelm

Hansson

(2014). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science, 2, 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.001

Bloome

Egan-Robertson

(1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/747928

Boettcher

Schäfer

(2017). Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue. Earth’s Future, 5(3), 266–277, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000521

Caldeira

Bala

(2017). Reflecting on 50 years of geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000454

Collins

H. M.

(1981). The place of the “core-set’ in modern science: Social contingency with methodological propriety in science. History of Science, 19(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327538101900102

Crutzen

P. J.

(2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77, Article 211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y

Evans

Collins

(2008). Expertise: From attribute to attribution and back again? In Hackett

Amsterdamska

Lynch

Wajcman

(Eds.). The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 609–630). MIT Press.

Fairclough

(1992). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004

Fairclough

Wodak

(1997). Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk

(Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, Vol. 2. Discourse as social interaction (p. 258–284). Sage.

10.

Fortun

(2005). Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary U.S. toxicology. American Anthropologist, 107(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.1.043

11.

Hamilton

(2013). Earth masters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.

12.

Hansen

(2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War (2nd ed.). Routledge.

13.

Harding

Moreno-Cruz

J. B.

(2016), Solar geoengineering economics: From incredible to inevitable and half-way back. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 569-577. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000462

14.

Hilgartner

(2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.

15.

Himmelsbach

(2018). How scientists advising the European Commission on research priorities view climate engineering proposals. Science and Public Policy, 45(1), 124-133. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx053

16.

Huttunen

Hildén

(2014). Framing the controversial: Geoengineering in academic literature. Science Communication, 36(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013492435

17.

Irvine

P. J.

Kravitz

Lawrence

M. G.

Gerten

Caminade

Gosling

S. M.

Hendy

E. J.

Kassie

B. T.

Kissling

W. D.

Muri

Oschlies

Smith

S. J.

(2017). Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000389

18.

Jasanoff

Kim

(2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), Article 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4

19.

Keith

D. W.

Irvine

P. J.

(2016). Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks—A research hypothesis for the next decade. Earth’s Future, 4(11), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000465

20.

Kravitz

Caldeira

Boucher

Robock

Rasch

Alterskjær

Bou Karam

Cole

J. N. S.

Curry

C. L.

Haywood

J. M.

Irvine

P. J.

Jones

Kristjánsson

J. E.

Lunt

D. J.

Moore

J. C.

Niemeier

Schmidt

Schulz

. . . Yoon

J.-H.

(2013). Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoIMP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 118(15), 8320–8332. https://doi.org/10.1002/JGRD.50646

21.

Laclau

Mouffe

(1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.

22.

Latham

(1990). Control of global warming. Nature, 347(6291), 339–340. https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0

23.

Latour

(1988). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.

24.

Lawson

(2011). Articulation, antagonism, and intercalation in Western military imaginaries. Security Dialogue, 42(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010610393775

25.

Lerderer

Kreuter

(2018). Organising the unthinkable in times of crisis: Will climate engineering become the weapon of last resort in the Anthropocene? Organization, 25(4), 472–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418759186

26.

Low

(2017), The futures of climate engineering. Earth’s Future, 5(1), 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000442

27.

MacCracken

M. C.

(2016). The rationale for accelerating regionally focused climate intervention research. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 649–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000450

28.

Oreskes

Conway

(2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Press.

29.

Quaas

M. F.

Boucher

Rickels

(2016). Regional climate engineering by radiation management: Prerequisites and prospects. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000440

30.

Reynolds

J. L.

Parker

Irvine

(2016). Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000416

31.

Robock

(2016). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: More research needed. Earth’s Future, 4(12), 644–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000407

32.

Robock

Oman

Stenchikov

G. L.

(2008). Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 113(D16), Article D16101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050

33.

Schiappa

(2003). Defining reality: Definition and the politics of meaning. Southern Illinois University Press.

34.

Sikka

(2012). A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.656377

35.

Star

S. L.

Griesemer

J. R.

(1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

36.

Stilgoe

(2015). Experiment Earth: Responsible innovation in geoengineering. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849195

37.

Szerszynski

Kearnes

Macnaghten

Owen

Stilgoe

(2013). Why solar radiation management and democracy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(12), 2809–2816. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45649

38.

Taylor

C. A.

(1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. University of Wisconsin Press.

39.

Tilmes

Fasullo

Lamarque

Marsh

Mills

Alterskjær

Muri

Kristjánsson

J. E.

Boucher

Schulz

Cole

J. N. S.

Curry

C. L.

Jones

Haywood

Irvine

P. J.

Moore

J. C.

Karam

D. B.

Kravitz

. . . Watanabe

(2013). The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmosphere, 118(19), 11036–11058. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868