'Maintaining planetary systems' or 'concentrating global power?' High stakes in contending framings of climate geoengineering

Global Environmental Change

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 25-38

  Cairns, Rose ^a   Stirling, Andy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Climate engineering; Discourse; Framing; Geoengineering; Q method

Indexed keywords

CARBON CYCLE; CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE; POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY; CARBON; CLIMATE MODELING; ENGINEERING GEOLOGY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; POLITICAL CHANGE; PRECISION; SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS;

CANADA; JAPAN; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84904684189     PISSN: 09593780     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Baker S., et al. The Politics of Sustainable Development 1997, Routledge, London.
2. Barry J., Proops J. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 28(3):337-345. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800998000536.
3. Bellamy R., et al. Appraising Geoengineering 2012, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Working Paper, (June).
4. Benford R.D., Snow D.A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000, 26:611-639.
5. Bourdieu P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste 1984, Routledge, London.
6. Brand R., Fischer J. Overcoming the technophilia/technophobia split in environmental discourse. Environ. Polit. 2012, (November):1-20. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2012.730264 (accessed 01.11.12).
7. Brewer P.G. Evaluating a technological fix for climate. PNAS 2007, 104(24):9915-9916.
8. Brown S.R. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science 1980, Yale University Press, New Haven/London.
9. Brown S.R. The forced-free distinction in Q technique. J. Educ. Meas. 1971, 8(4):283-287.
10. Buck H.J. Climate engineering: spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news media framing. (De-)Constructing the Greenhouse: Interpretative Approaches to Global Climate Governance 2013, Routledge, London. C. Methmann, D. Rothe, B. Stephen (Eds.).
11. Burt C. The reciprocity principle. Science, Psychology and Communication 1972, Teachers College Press, New York. S.R. Brown, D.J. Brenner (Eds.).
12. Collins H.M., Yearley S. Epistemological chicken. Science as Practice and Culture 1992, 301-326. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA. A. Pickering (Ed.).
13. Cressey D. Climate report puts geoengineering in the spotlight IPCC statement suggests tinkering with the atmosphere could be necessary to meet climate goals. Nature 2013, http://www.nature.com/news/climate-report-puts-geoengineering-in-the-spotlight-1.13871.
14. Dewey J. The Public and its Problems 1927, Holt and Company, New York.
15. Dryzek J.S., Berejikian J. Reconstructive democratic theory. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1993, 87(1):48-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2938955.
16. Eden S., Donaldson A., Walker G. Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in human geography. Area 2005, 37(4):413-422.
17. Edenhofer O., et al. Meeting Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering 2012, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering, Lima.
18. Entman R. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and US Foreign Policy 2004, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, http://books.google.co.uk/books?.hl=en&lr=&id=SzG0HkZeoNIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=entman+projections+of+power&ots=hvJmg3rIK_&sig=LR4vKOJItCBl6SkjkrYx84Oba0Q (accessed 20.09.12).
19. Feenberg A. Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity 2010, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
20. Fischer F., Forester J. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning 1993, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.
21. Fleming J. The pathological history of weather and climate modification: three cycles of promise and hype. Hist. Stud. Phys. Biol. Sci. 2006, 37(1):3-25.
22. Foucault M. Power 2002, Penguin, London.
23. GAO Climate Change: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts 2010, Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
24. Gardiner S.M. Geoengineering and moral schizophrenia: what is the question?. Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspectives, Legal Issues and Governance Frameworks 2013, 11-38. Cambridge University Press, New York. W.C.G. Burns, A.L. Strauss (Eds.).
25. Gardiner S.M. Some early ethics of geoengineering the climate: a commentary on the values of the royal society report. Environ. Values 2011, 20:163-188.
26. Gieryn T. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48(6):781-795.
27. Gledhill J. Power and its disguises 1994, Pluto Press, London.
28. Goffman E. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience 1974, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
29. Gramsci A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci 1971, Lawrence and Wishart, London. Q. Hoare, G. Nowell-Smith (Eds.).
30. Gruber J. Perspectives of effective and sustainable community-based natural resource management: an application of Q methodology to forest projects. Conserv. Soc. 2011, 9(2):159-171. http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2011/9/2/159/83725 (accessed 26.07.12).
31. Living with Nature: Environmental Politics as Cultural Discourse 1999, 1-20. Oxford University Press, New York. F. Fischer, M.A. Hajer (Eds.).
32. Hajer M.A. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process 1997, Oxford University Press, Oxford, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/019829333X.001/0001.
33. Hoffman A.J. Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Org. Environ. 2011, 24(1):3-33.
34. Hogan A. A comparison of offline and online Q factors. Paper read at the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity (ISSSS), 26th Annual Q Conference 2010, 1-6.
35. Hoppe R. Argumentative turn, policy analysis, science and politics: from "speaking truth to power" to "making sense together". Sci. Publ. Policy 1999, 26(3):201-210.
36. Hulme M. Climate change: climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2012, 36(5):694-705. http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0309133312456414.
37. Hulme M. The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geogr. J. 2008, 174(1):5-16.
38. Huttunen S., Hilden M. Framing Geoengineering in Academic Literature (DRAFT) 2012.
39. IPCC Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Summary for Policy Makers 2013.
40. Jasanoff S. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies 1995, Sage Publications, London.
41. Keith D., Dowlatabadi H. A serious look at geoengineering. Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1992, 73(27):292-293.
42. Long J., et al. Geoengineering: A National Strategic Plan for Research on the Potential Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Consequences of Climate Remediation Technologies 2011, Washington, DC.
43. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View 2004, Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.
44. Luokkanen M., et al. Geoengineering, news media and metaphors: framing the controversial. Publ. Understand. Sci. 2013, http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0963662513475966 (accessed 28.03.13).
45. Macnaghten P., Szerszynski B. Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob. Environ. Change 2013, http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378012001483 (accessed 28.01.13).
46. Nerlich B., Jaspal R. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symb. 2012, 27(2):131-147.
47. O'Neill J. Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environ. Plann. C: Govern. Policy 2001, 19(4):483-500. http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=c12s (accessed 28.08.13).
48. Pinch T.J., Bijker W.E. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Stud. Sci. 1984, 14(3):399-441.
49. Porter K., Hulme M. The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. Geogr. J. 2013, http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/geoj.12003 (accessed 02.03.13).
50. Reber B.H., Kaufman S.E., Cropp F. Assessing Q-assessor: a validation study of computer-based Q sorts versus paper sorts. Operant Subj. 2000, 23(4):192-209.
51. Robbins P., Krueger R. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in human geography. Prof. Geogr. 2000, 52(4):636-648.
52. Rydin Y. Can we talk ourselves into sustainability? The role of discourse in the environmental policy process. Environ. Values 1999, 8:467-484.
53. Sarewitz D. The voice of science: let's agree to disagree. Nature 2011, 478(7):2011.
54. Schmolck PQMethod 2.11 2002, Available to download here: http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/downpqwin.htm (accessed 10.01.13).
55. Scholte S., Vasileiadou E., Petersen A. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. SSRN Electron. J. 2012, 1-28. http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2161733.
56. Scholte S., Vasileiadou E., Petersen A.C. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2013, (February):1-16. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1943815X. 2012.759593 (accessed on 22.02.13).
57. Schön D.A., Rein M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies 1995, Basic Books, New York.
58. Shepherd J., et al. Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty 2009, The Royal Society, London, http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/156647/1/Geoengineering_the_climate.pdf (accessed on 20.09.12).
59. Sikka T. A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Crit. Discourse Stud. 2012, 9(2):163-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.656377 (accessed on 06.09.12).
60. Sikka T. A critical theory of technology applied to the public discussion of geoengineering. Technol. Soc. 2012, 34(2):109-117. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0160791X12000073 (accessed on 22.03.13).
61. Stainton Rogers R., Stainton Rogers W. What the Brits got out of the Q, and why their work may not line up with the American way of getting into it!. Electron. J. Commun. 1990, 1.
62. Stephenson W. The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its Methodology 1953, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
63. Stilgoe J. Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC?. The Guardian 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/sep/27/science-policy1.
64. Stirling A. "Opening up" and "closing down": power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33(2):262-294. http://sth.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0162243907311265 (Accessed on 05.10.12).
65. Stirling A. Participation, precaution and reflexive governance for sustainable development. Governing Sustainability 2009, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. A. Jordan, N. Adger (Eds.).
66. Stirling A. Precaution, foresight and sustainability: reflection and reflexivity in the governance of technology. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development 2006, 225-272. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
67. Swedeen P. Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 57(2):190-208. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VDY-4GCX0FX-1/2/165342da20838b66efa2598f8ce31af6 (accessed on 01.09.12).
68. Van Tubergen G.N., Olins R.A. Mail vs personal interview administration for Q sorts: a comparative study. Operant Subj. 1979, 2(2):51-59.
69. Walker G., Shrove E. Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of sociotechnical transitions. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007, 9(3-4):213-225. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15239080701622840 (accessed on 01.02.13).
70. Warner M. Publics and Counterpublics 2010, Zone Books, New York.
71. Watts S., Stenner P. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2005, 2(1):67-91.
72. Webler T., et al. Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research 2009.
73. Whelan J., Lyons K. Community engagement or community action: choosing not to play the game. Environ. Polit. 2005, 14(5):596-610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010500257888 (accessed on 25.02.13).