Climate geoengineering
Issues of path‐dependence and socio‐technical lock‐in
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12929641 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rose Cairns (0000-0001-6383-4174, University of Sussex, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 649-661 |
| Publication date | 2014-06-27 |
| 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.296 |
| OpenAlex | W1481953682 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 28 |
| References cited | 76 |
As academic and policy interest in climate geoengineering grows, the potential irreversibility of technological developments in this domain has been raised as a pressing concern. The literature on socio‐technical lock‐in and path dependence is illuminating in helping to situate current concerns about climate geoengineering and irreversibility in the context of academic understandings of historical socio‐technical development and persistence. This literature provides a wealth of material illustrating the pervasiveness of positive feedbacks of various types (from the discursive to the material) leading to complex socio‐technical entanglements which may resist change and become inflexible even in the light of evidence of negative impacts. With regard to climate geoengineering, there are concerns that geoengineering technologies might contribute so‐called ‘carbon lock‐in’, or become irreversibly ‘locked‐in’ themselves. In particular, the scale of infrastructures that geoengineering interventions would require, and the issue of the so‐called ‘termination effect’ have been discussed in these terms. Despite the emergent and somewhat ill‐defined nature of the field, some authors also suggest that the extant framings of geoengineering in academic and policy literatures may already demonstrate features recognizable as forms of cognitive lock‐in, likely to have profound implications for future developments in this area. While the concepts of path‐dependence and lock‐in are the subject of ongoing academic critique, by drawing analytical attention to these pervasive processes of positive feedback and entanglement, this literature is highly relevant to current debates around geoengineering. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:649–661. doi: 10.1002/wcc.296 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making
Climate change · Context (archaeology · Economics · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Extant taxon · Geoengineering · Geography · Neoclassical economics · Path dependence · Political science · Scale (ratio · Sociology · Climate Change and Geoengineering · Philosophy · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Ecology
The politics of anticipation
The International Politics of Climate Engineering
Locked in extraction
Does innovative city construction improve urban carbon unlocking efficiency? Evidence from China
Ideological divides around solar radiation modification geoengineering
Toward an evidence‐informed, responsible, and inclusive debate on solar geoengineering
Proactive and reactive geoengineering
Solar geoengineering
The Future Is the Termination Shock
Slippery slope’ or ‘uphill struggle’? Broadening out expert scenarios of climate engineering research and development
From disagreements to dialogue
The Slippery Slopes of Climate Engineering Research
Community assets and relative rurality index
Ambivalent climate of opinions
A scenario process to inform Australian geoengineering policy
Solar geoengineering research in the global public interest
Techno-moral change through solar geoengineering
Unlocking “lock-in” and path dependency
An earth system governance perspective on solar geoengineering
Global perspectives on solar geoengineering
Transdisciplinary co-design of scientific research agendas
How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations
How should we ask questions about the social status of climate change knowledge
Urban sustainability and resilience
Macrosecuritisation failure and technological lock-in
A Sociotechnical Framework for Governing Climate Engineering
Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research
Governing the termination problem in solar radiation management
Managing technology in society
Communities of Practice
Ethics and intentional climate change
The Oxford Principles
Terrorism in a Bargaining Framework
In search of useful theory of innovation
Entrapment in large technology systems
Globalizing carbon lock-in
Understanding carbon lock-in
Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance
Can Path Dependence Explain Institutional Change? Two Approaches Applied to Welfare State Reform
The Ethical Assessment of Technological Change
Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument From Catastrophe
Geoengineering, news media and metaphors
Toward the Public Sphere—Reflections on the Development of Participatory Technology Assessment
Tales of Emergence—Synthetic Biology as a Scientific Community in the Making
Of mongooses and mitigation
Prospective voluntary agreements for escaping techno-institutional lock-in
The path dependence of path dependence
Assessing Expectations
A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research
Perceptions of geoengineering
Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change
A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy
Living the global social experiment
Carbon capture and storage, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, and the escape from the fossil-fuel lock-in
Water-flushing toilets
Real-time technology assessment
Converging technologies
Sprayed to Death
Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering
Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation
Fixing the Sky
Hope Against Hype - Accountability in Biopasts, Presents and Futures
Studying Obduracy in the City
The emergence of the geoengineering debate in theUKprint media
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics
Whose Knowledge, Whose nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements
Decentering Biotechnology
| Unique citing works | 28 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,8 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2026 (11) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 28 |