Hi everyone, The proposed Non-Use Agreement seems to be largely driven by the leadership of the Earth System Governance Project (see here https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org). In that regard it's worth mentioning that I recently co-authored a couple of articles on how ESG and some of its prominent affiliates relate to solar geoengineering.
The first, written with Jesse Reynolds, is titled *An Earth System Governance Perspective on Solar Geoengineering* (https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/an_earth_system_governance_perspective_on_solar_geoengineering.pdf?m=1603715657). Here's the abstract: *Solar geoengineering appears capable of reducing climate change and the associated risks. In part because it would be global in effect, the governance of solar geoengineering is a central concern. The Earth System Governance (ESG) Project includes many researchers who, to varying degrees, utilize a common vocabulary and research framework. Despite the clear mutual relevance of solar geoengineering and ESG, few ESG researchers have considered the topic in substantial depth. To stimulate its sustained uptake as a subject within the ESG research program, we identify significant contributions thus far by ESG scholars on the subject of solar geoengineering governance and survey the wider solar geo- engineering governance literature from the perspective of the new ESG research framework. Based on this analysis, we also suggest specific potential lines of inquiry that we believe are ripe for research by ESG scholars: nonstate actors’ roles, polycentricity, public engagement and participation, and the Anthropocene.* The second, written with Barbara Koremenos, is titled *Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research* (https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/glep_a_00572_horton.pdf?m=1599010167). There's a big overlap between ESG and TCG. Here's the abstract: *Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the emerging field of solar geoengineering—a novel technol- ogy intended to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate impacts— many of their most significant activities, including knowledge dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with transnational governance and transnational governance is important to reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as a critical component of gover- nance. Exercising influence, for example, through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational governance—it complements direct governing with indi- rect efforts to inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and gov- erned. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and substate engagements beyond the state.* Both of these articles offer insights into some of the perspectives behind the proposal. Josh Horton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d6809349-1f49-4a6a-bfd3-306236387758n%40googlegroups.com.
