Proactive and reactive geoengineering
Engineering the climate and the lithosphere
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12929534 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jeroen Oomen (0000-0003-2691-310X, Utrecht University, corresponding author), Martin Meiske (0000-0002-3925-9752, Deutsches Museum) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Publication date | 2021-07-26 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1757-7780 • E-ISSN: 1757-7799 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/wcc.732 |
| OpenAlex | W3184442957 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 53 |
In recent years, the idea of geoengineering, understood as large‐scale interventions in the planet's climate to counteract anthropogenic climate change, has steadily increased its visibility. Presented explicitly as an approach to climate change, geoengineering is positioned as a response , a reactive fix. Geoengineering, however, has a longer and broader history than the current climate crisis. It has long been an umbrella term for large‐scale projects in which various Earth sciences meet dreams about human ecosphere interventions, especially regarding lithosphere and climate and weather modifications. In this paper, we review the history of geoengineering, focusing specifically on climate geoengineering and lithosphere geoengineering. We draw attention to the difference between “proactive” (“high‐modernist”), aimed at mastery over nature, and “reactive” forms of geoengineering, hoping to address anthropogenic environmental degradation technologically. Additionally, we trace historical (dis)continuities between the older, proactive, form of geoengineering and their recent reframing as a technological fix—specifically around the question to what extent nature's complex systems can be known and controlled. Finally, we argue for the need to further research the intersections and shared histories between various forms of geoengineering. This article is categorized under: Climate, History, Society, Culture > Ideas and Knowledge
Anthropocene · Climate change · Cognitive reframing · Earth science · Earth system science · Environmental ethics · Geoengineering · Geography · Psychological intervention · Scale (ratio · Climate Change and Geoengineering · Psychology · Space exploration and regulation · Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life · Ecology · Geology
Soviet and Russian perspectives on geoengineering and climate management
Technology and International Environmental Cooperation
Undone science in climate interventions
Transition or Interregnum? Two Ways of Understanding Politics in the Anthropocene
Two problems or one? Climate engineering and conceptual disaggregation
Taking it outside
Science‐state alliances and climate engineering
A Case for Climate Engineering
Historical Perspectives on Climate Change
Ethics and intentional climate change
G Eoengineering the C Limate
Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections
The Legacy of Hiroshima
Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering
Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order
Anthropocenic Limitations to Climate Engineering
The Great American Mission
Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling
Climate geoengineering
Ethics and geoengineering
The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering”
History of climate engineering
Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity
Imagining the corridor of climate mitigation – What is at stake in IPCC’s politics of anticipation
An Experiment with Forced Oxygenation of the Deepwater of the Anoxic By Fjord, Western Sweden
Malaria control in the Tennessee Valley Authority
The Conquest of Nature
Earth in the Balance
Framing the Controversial
The IPCC and the new map of science and politics
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 7 |