Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order

Ocean Fertilization as Climate Change Mitigation Measure—Consideration under International Law

AbstractOcean fertilization is, at least theoretically, perceived as an option to mitigate climate change. However, theoretical assumptions could not be proved by experiments, in fact recent experiments have endorsed existing doubts. On international level seems to be a far-reaching—at least political—consensus that ocean fertilization should not be applied as climate change mitigation measure, based inter alia on unknown risks for the marine environment. Currently the Contracting Parties of the London Protocol are negotiating an international ban of ocean fertilization projects. Only “legitimate scientific research” shall be exempted from the prohibition provided negative effects on the marine environment can be excluded in this field. There is an ongoing discussion on whether a prior permission regime for research projects would be an adequate and reasonable approach and—finally also—legally admissible. </jats:sec