MoellendorfD. 2014. The Moral Challenge of Dangerous Climate Change: Values, Poverty, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

In recent years, a number of powerful arguments have been given for thinking that there should be suprastate institutions, and that the current ones, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and United Nations Security Council, need to be radically reformed and new ones created. Two distinct kinds of argument have been advanced. One is instrumental and emphasizes the need for effective suprastate political institutions to realize some important substantive ideals (such as preventing dangerous climate change, eradicating poverty, promoting fair trade, and securing peace). The second is procedural and emphasizes the importance of political institutions that include all those subject to their power in as democratic a process as possible, and builds on this to call for democratically accountable international institutions. In this chapter, the author argues that the two approaches need not conflict, and that they can in fact lend support to each other.

Download Full-text

‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change ◽

10.1002/wcc.263 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 281-290 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Nils Markusson ◽

Franklin Ginn ◽

Navraj Singh Ghaleigh ◽

Vivian Scott

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Dangerous Climate Change

Download Full-text

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096512001436 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 46 (01) ◽

pp. 23-27 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Clare Heyward

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Large Scale ◽

Solar Radiation Management ◽

Diverse Range ◽

Political Issues ◽

Government Organizations ◽

Mitigation And Adaptation ◽

Potential Strategy ◽

Dangerous Climate Change ◽

Radiation Management

Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

Download Full-text