Geopolitical ecology of solar geoengineering: from a 'logic of multilateralism' to logics of militarization

Kevin Surprise

doi:10.2458/v27i1.23583

Abstract

Solar geoengineering technologies intended to slow climate change by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere are gaining traction in climate policy. Solar geoengineering is considered "fast, cheap, and imperfect" in that it could rapidly reduce planetary temperatures with low cost technology, but potentially generate catastrophic consequences for climate, weather, and biodiversity. Governance has therefore been central to solar geoengineering debates, particularly the question of unilateral deployment, whereby a state or group of states could deploy the technology against the wishes of the international community. In this context, recent, influential scenarios posit that – given technological and political complexities – solar geoengineering deployment will likely be guided by a "logic of multilateralism." I challenge this assertion by arguing that solar geoengineering is defined by equally compelling 'logics of militarization.' I detail recent involvement in solar geoengineering development on the part of U.S. defense, intelligence, and foreign policy institutions, geoengineering scenarios that adopt militarized logics and expertise, and Realist international relations theories that undergird leading governance scenarios. I then demonstrate that the U.S. military has a strategic interest in solar geoengineering, as U.S. hegemony is predicated on expanding fossil fuels, but the military deems climate change a threat to national security. The unique spatio-temporal qualities of solar geoengineering can bridge the gap between these contradictory positions. In examining the militarization of solar geoengineering, I aim to ground recent conceptions of "planetary sovereignty" in the emergent field of "geopolitical ecology" through the latter's more granular approach to the world-making powers of key geopolitical-ecological actors. Key Words: solar geoengineering, geopolitical ecology, militarization, U.S. hegemony, climate intervention

Highlights

Not made entirely explicit ... 'unilateral' [geoengineering] appears to mean any deployment not conducted by or coordinated with the United States.Jeremy Baskin, 2019At the 2019 United Nations Environment Assembly, Switzerland advanced a resolution that would require the UN Environment Program to draft guidance for UN member countries on how move forward with geoengineering research
The U.S military, intelligence, and foreign policy establishment has been directly involved in shaping the solar geoengineering governance field, from funding research to hosting conferences, producing reports, and providing congressional testimony. This influence is evident in recent scenarios that adopt military language, logics, and expertise, undergirded by a highly specific understanding of international politics informed by the axiomatic tenets of Realist International Relations (IR) theory
Counter-intuitively, these scenarios argue that solar geoengineering governance will be driven by a "logic of multilateralism", but such assessments lack an analysis of capitalist imperialism and a notion of strategic unilateral deployment

Summary

Introduction

Not made entirely explicit ... 'unilateral' [geoengineering] appears to mean any deployment not conducted by or coordinated with the United States. Leading SAI research institutions are producing increasingly detailed models and scenarios of SAI deployment, many of which aver that deployment should be limited in scope and governed cooperatively by states working through international institutions to minimize climate vulnerabilities and enhance global welfare (Irvine et al 2019; Parker et al 2018; Smith and Wagner 2018; Stavins et al 2018) This vision of governance acknowledges the potential for conflict, but is guided by a belief that the technological and political requirements of SAI deployment render it "ruled ... In the geoengineering governance field, it demonstrates that reliance on a narrow set of theoretical approaches results in a fundamental elision of both the militarization of the technology to date, and the potential for strategic (rather than tactical or weaponized) deployment of SAI on the part of the U.S military It links conceptions of "planetary sovereignty" (Wainwright and Mann 2018) with the emerging framework of "geopolitical ecology" (Bigger and Neimark 2017).. This capacity is consonant with the strategic logic of current U.S strategy, and immanent to alreadyexisting imperial power under international law

Climate intervention: the militarization of solar geoengineering

Findings

Conclusion