Hamilton - Geoengineering and the Politics of Science

XML Template (2014) [14.4.2014–10:59am] [1–10]//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/BOSJ/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SG-BOSJ140011.3d (BOS) [PREPRIN-TER stage]

Bulletinof theAtomicScientists

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

®

Feature

Geoengineering and thepolitics of science

Clive Hamilton

AbstractThe latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include an assessment ofgeoengineeringÑmethods for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or cooling the Earth by reflectingmore of the sunÕs radiation back into space. The IPCC assessment signals the arrival of geoengineering into themainstream of climate science, and may normalize climate engineering as a policy response to global warming.Already, conservative forces in the United States are promoting it as a substitute for emissions reductions.Climate scientists are sharply divided over geoengineering, in much the same way that Manhattan Projectscientists were divided over nuclear weapons after World War II. Testing a geoengineering scheme, such assulfate aerosol spraying, is inherently difficult. Deployment would make political decision makers highlydependent on a technocratic elite. In a geoengineered world, experts would control the conditions of dailylife, and it is unlikely that such a regime would be a just one. A disproportionate number of scientists currentlyworking on geoengineering have either worked at, or collaborated with, the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory. The history of US nuclear weapons laboratories during the Cold War reveals a belief in human-kindÕs right to exercise total mastery over nature. With geoengineering, this kind of thinking is staging apowerful comeback in the face of climate crisis.

Keywordsclimate change, David Keith, Edward Teller, geoengineering, IPCC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,solar radiation, Winston Churchill

The decision by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC) toinclude a detailed assessment of geoen-gineering in its Fifth Assessment Reportbrings climate engineering from thefringes of the policy debate into the main-stream. When, in 2006, Paul Crutzenpublished his controversial essay callingfor a program of sustained research intosulfate aerosol spraying as a method ofblocking some of the sunÕs radiation to

help cool the planet, he broke a long-standing taboo among climate scientistson talk of geoengineering (Crutzen,2006). With the floodgates opened,research and publication acceleratedrapidly. However, the climate sciencecommunity remains sharply divided, ina way reminiscent of the divide overatomic weapons after World War II.

A taboo on talking about geoengineer-ing remains among politicians and policy

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists0(0) 1–10

! The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0096340214531173

http://thebulletin.sagepub.com

at UNSW Library on April 23, 2014bos.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bos.sagepub.com/


makers, who fear accusations of bad faithif they promote Plan B when it is theywho are in a position to implement thesuperior Plan A, cutting greenhouse gasemissions. With anxiety among climatescientists rising, and the global commu-nity still unable to agree to a program ofemission reductions, the gap betweenwhat must be done and what is beingdone grows wider each year, and itseems only a matter of time before thepolitical floodgates are opened togeoengineering.

The recent publication of reports byWorking Groups II and III of the IPCC,which provide a detailed assessment ofgeoengineering, may be the event thattriggers the opening. In a sense it doesnot matter whether the IPCC takes askeptical view or a more positivestance. The fact that the IPCC nowincludes geoengineering among thepotential policy responses to globalwarming gives permission to those whohave been supporting geoengineering inprivate to do so in public.

Moreover, the IPCCÕs formal acknow-ledgement of climate engineering as apossible response emboldens those inthe climate science community who arepromoting Plan B, and none more so thanHarvard physicist David Keith, the mostinfluential advocate of geoengineeringresearch (his influence and commercialengagement are detailed in Hamilton,2013). Eli Kintisch, author of Hack thePlanet (2010), describes Keith and Stan-ford scientist Ken Caldeira as theÒgeoclique,Ó because of their long-run-ning advocacy and the central role theyhave played in almost all reports on thesubject. In KeithÕs recent, short book, ACase for Climate Engineering, he puts tothe general public for the first time arationale for injecting sulfuric acid into

the upper atmosphere to create a layer oftiny particles between the Earth and theSun (Keith, 2013). By mimicking theeffect of a large volcanic eruption, sucha solar shield could be adjusted asdesired to reduce the amount of solarradiation reaching the EarthÕs surfaceand so cool the planet.

Until 2013, Keith had advocated only aresearch program, but in his new book heoffers Òa specific scenario for deploy-mentÓ for the solar shield: beginningwith theoretical and laboratory work,followed by experiments in the atmos-phere, moving to minimal deploymentand then, absent unpleasant surprises,commencing gradual full deployment,perhaps as early as 2025 (Keith, 2013:80”86). KeithÕs proposal that we shouldnot merely conduct a research programbut actually deploy the solar shield raisesthe stakes considerably. He proposesthat we start slowly and increase theinjections until there are enough sulfateparticles in the stratosphere to slow byhalf the rate of human-induced warming.Going only halfway, he argues, will shar-ply reduce the risk of altering global rain-fall patterns.

In some of his writings, Keithexpresses confidence in humanityÕs abil-ity to regulate the EarthÕs climate. Otheratmospheric scientists have moredoubts. Alan Robock at Rutgers Univer-sity is the most influential climate scien-tist publishing papers that take askeptical view. In an article in the Bulle-tin, Robock (2008) listed 20 reasons whygeoengineering may be a bad idea.

One of RobockÕs arguments was thatthe climate effects of solar radiationmanagement, once deployed, would bedifficult to isolate from the effects of nat-ural variability and the impacts ofanthropogenic warming. This is a

2 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 0(0)




decisive argument against KeithÕs pro-posal for a slow ramp-up of sulfate injec-tions, and leads to a broader questioningof the role of scientists like David Keithin a climate-challenged world. It wouldtake at least a decade of full deploymentbefore enough data were available tojudge confidently whether the solarfilter was working as planned (Robocket al., 2010).1

If Robock is right, his assessmentdrives a dagger into the heart of KeithÕsramp-up scheme, which aims to slowwarming by Òa fractionÓ of a degree Cel-sius (Keith, 2013: 85). If it would take adecade to generate the data needed toassess full deployment, it would takemuch longer with KeithÕs proposal tostart slowly and go halfway. With nodecipherable information coming in, sci-entists would be flying blind for a verylong time. The scheme therefore violatesthe first principle of engineering sys-tems. That is, after initially setting thecontrol variables, the engineer mustobtain feedback from the system beforeadjusting the settings to make it workoptimally.

This problem is quite well known.Given its importance, one would expectKeith to include a robust rebuttal ofRobockÕs argument in his book, but hedoes not. When he does mention the argu-ment, he claims it is Òdoubly wrongÓ(Keith, 2013: 63). How? First, he says, wecan learn a lot from field tests that have alarge signal in a local environment withlittle noise. It is true that tests can tell usimportant things about atmosphericchemistry, but they can tell us next tonothing about the effects of solar geoen-gineering on the global climate.

Secondly, Keith writes, Òeven if it weretested at Ôfull scaleÕ we will still notresolve all our uncertainties.Ó In this

mystifying statement he seems to besaying that the objection is even strongerthan Robock and other critics claim.ThatÕs all he says. KeithÕs response tothe killer objection to solar geoengineer-ing is to not engage with it.2

A world controlled by scientists

Even if RobockÕs objection were not fatalto sulfate aerosol spraying, the dataproblem prompts some deeper concerns.Any deployment program would dependheavily on a complex array of atmos-pheric measurements. Models wouldaggregate and assess the streams ofincoming data on land, sea, and air tem-peratures; on precipitation around theworld; on unusual weather patterns;and on atmospheric chemistry, includingozone depletion and the rates at whichsulfur particles fall out of the strato-sphere. Models would also be used tomake projections about the combinedeffects of sulfate injection and elevatedcarbon dioxide concentrations. Decisionmakers in government would thereforebe highly dependent on a technocraticelite at what would effectively be aglobal climate regulatory agency.

ItÕs worth noting the apparent paradoxof conservative think tanks (such as theAmerican Enterprise Institute, the CatoInstitute, and even the extremist Heart-land Institute),3 which for years haverejected the validity of climate science,now expressing support for geoengi-neering. They are endorsing a solutionto a problem they claimed does notexist (Hamilton, 2013). For them, geoen-gineering promises to turn a drasticfailure of the free enterprise systeminto a triumph of human ingenuity.Instead of climate change being a vindi-cation of environmentalistsÕ warnings,

Hamilton 3




geoengineering exposes the greensÕ lackof faith in humanity. Rather than shrink-ing from technological hubris, conserva-tives are calling for greater mastery overnature. However, conservatives whofavor solar geoengineering seem not yetto understand that, in seeking to avoidgovernment regulation of fossil fueluse, they are endorsing governmentregulation of the climate, and doing sothrough a scientific bureaucracy thatwould be far more powerful than theIPCC. To be sure, such a bureaucracywould not regulate individual behavior,but it would regulate the conditions inwhich individuals behave.

Beyond the ideological contortions ofconservatives, what can be said aboutdecision making in a geoengineeredworld? Geoengineering advocates seemto be at home in the world of techno-cratic control. Keith implies that a separ-ation can be maintained between thepure domain of science and technology,and the arena of politics that threaten tosully itÑcreating what he calls Òa worldwithout politics,Ó (2013: 87) in which sci-entists could be trusted to exercisepower, justly and objectively, over theworldÕs climate.

When future political leaders mustmake decisions on climate control,which scientists will they turn to? His-tory suggests they will choose the onesthey most trust. Trust has a contingentrelationship with expertise. As a rule,political orientation comes beforeexpertise. It was not only Edward Tell-erÕs reputation as Òthe father of thehydrogen bombÓ that turned him intoone of the foremost architects of theCold War, but also his strident anti-com-munism. With unmatched access to theRepublican White House, Teller waseven invited into the Pentagon to help

choose the Russian cities and militaryfacilities to be obliterated in a firststrike (Broad, 1992: 20).

In a world of climate control, the prac-tice of politics would change along withthe weather. We have seen this beforewith world-shifting technologies.Steven Shapin recently wrote aboutWinston ChurchillÕs wartime rumin-ations over BritainÕs commitment tobuilding an atom bomb:

. . . the distinction between the domains of sci-ence and politics is put under pressurewhen there is a prospect that the nature ofpolitics, diplomacy, and the use of militaryforce will be transformed by the existence ofnew science and new technologies. (Shapin,2013: 36)

Churchill, writes Shapin, Òsuspected that[scientists] had a pernicious wish toparlay technical expertise into politicalinfluence.Ó He took the view that scien-tists should have no more influence ongovernment policy than dentists. Butpoliticians often have no choice, soChurchill surrounded himself with asmall group of men who had won histrust. His job was to Òadjudicate betweenthe boffinsÓ (Brendon, 2013).

However, as the historian GrahamFarmelo has shown, Churchill came torely on one adviser in particular, theOxford physicist Frederick Lindemann.Lindemann was not a top-ranked scien-tist, but he was of ChurchillÕs social classand political convictions and, most use-fully, he was skilled in the art of flattery(Farmelo, 2013). (When criticized for hisunhealthy closeness to Lindemann,Churchill responded: ÒLove me, lovemy dog.Ó)

Even so, Churchill always retained ahealthy skepticism of the boffins. In a1937 newspaper article titled ÒLife in





a World Controlled by the Scientists,Ó hewrote:

. . . there are secrets too mysterious for man inhis present state to know; secrets which oncepenetrated may be fatal to human happinessand glory. But the busy hands of the scientistsare already fumbling with the keys of all thechambers hitherto forbidden to mankind.(Churchill, 1937)4

The words have an eerie contemporaryrelevance. While perhaps not all wouldconcur with ChurchillÕs conviction thatthere are rooms best left locked, mostwould agree with him that our moraldevelopment, self-control, and politicalinstitutions often lag well behind our for-midable scientific insights and techno-logical prowess. ÒIt would be muchbetter,Ó he declared, Òto call a halt inmaterial progress and discovery ratherthan to be mastered by our own appar-atus and the forces which it directsÓ(1937).

A geoengineered world would be onein which the conditions of daily lifewould be set by experts far away andhuman nobility, as Churchill might haveput it, would no longer be possible, not somuch because humanity would inhabitan artificial Earth but because humanitymade it necessary to inhabit an artificialEarth.

Given that humans are proposing toengineer the climate because of a cas-cade of institutional failings and self-interested behaviors, any suggestionthat deployment of a solar shield wouldbe done in a way that fulfilled the prin-ciples of justice and compassion wouldlack credibility, to say the least. Human-ity finds itself in a situation where geoen-gineering is being proposed because ofour penchant for deceiving ourselvesand inflating our virtues.

If a just global warming solutioncannot be found, who can believe in ajust geoengineering regime? Studieshave shown that a solar filter wouldoffset the impacts of global warmingmore effectively in some parts of theworld than others. In some areas it mayexacerbate droughts. The temptation ofthose who control the heat shield tomanipulate it in a way that suits theirown interests would be ever-presentand almost irresistible. No wondernations of the South are leading earlymoves, notably through the Conventionon Biological Diversity, to imposerestrictions on geoengineering.

Scientific naıvete

Whatever the motives and professional-ism of geoengineering researchers, theidea is already attracting a range ofother actors with a diversity of purposesand standpoints, not all of them admir-able. It would be naõ¬ve of researchers toimagine they can isolate themselves in acocoon of scientific neutrality. Nor canthey absolve themselves of responsibil-ity for how their schemes might be usedor misused in the future. These technol-ogies are, after all, designed to regulatethe conditions of life. Once political, cor-porate, and military players becomeinvolved, geoengineering experts willlose control of how the technology isused.

Already, military organizations aretaking an interest. The PentagonÕsDefense Advanced Research ProjectsAgency convened a meeting in 2009 toconsider geoengineering. The semi-secret, military-linked JASON group oftop scientists who advise the US govern-ment is also reported to be studyinggeoengineering (Kintisch, 2009). The

Hamilton 5




Central Intelligence Agency is currentlyfunding a report (Aldhous, 2013).

In a messy world of climate con-trolÑin which political, strategic, andcommercial interests collideÑthe roleof experts will be complicated. Essen-tially, though, they will have a choice:to go along with the authoritiesÕ programor get out. Edward Teller and RobertOppenheimer, who played vital roles inthe Manhattan Project, faced a similarchoice. Oppenheimer, often called thefather of the atom bomb, spent many ofthe post-Hiroshima years trying to limitthe spread of nuclear weapons. WhileOppenheimer worked to restrain themonster he had helped to create, and soearned the ire of the authorities, Tellerworked assiduously to place himself atthe very center of the nuclear arms raceand attained power unprecedented for ascientist. He could do so because he wasthe most aggressive advocate of nuclearbombs, including their use for civilengineering projects.5

If controlling the worldÕs weatherbecomes central to the exercise ofglobal strategic and military powerÑasnuclear weapons did after World WarIIÑwhich path will todayÕs geoengineer-ing researchers take, OppenheimerÕs orTellerÕs?

Geoengineering at Livermore

A disproportionate number of scientiststoday working on geoengineering haveeither worked at, or collaborated with,the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory (Hamilton, 2013).6 This sug-gests that the history of Livermore mayprovide some insights into the deeperideas behind climate engineering andthe way some geoengineers understandthe human relationship with the Earth.

The best source on LivermoreÕs cultureis Hugh GustersonÕs (1996) studyNuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory atthe End of the Cold War.

Established in 1952, the laboratory wasat the center of the US program todevelop and test nuclear warheads. Co-founded by Ernest Lawrence andEdward Teller, it soon became the mostvigorous advocate of the hydrogenbomb. Teller himself, fiercely anti-Soviet, became a central player in theCold War. Under his leadership, the labacquired a Ònear-mythological status asthe dark heart of weapons researchÓ(Goodell, 2006).

Weapons researchers came to believethat their technical expertise gave them aprivileged role in advising governmenton nuclear policy. Among weapons sci-entists, the conviction grew that under-standing and exercising control of thetechnologies was sufficient to renderthem safe, as if mastery of the technicalsphere carried over into the politicalsphere. Confidence in the technologyspilled over into the structures thatdetermined how and when nuclearweaponry might be used, reflecting themodern predilection to elevate technicalunderstanding over other kinds ofunderstanding, so that those who couldspeak with authority in the formeracquired the right to speak in the latter.

In the emerging geoengineering field,scientists have assumed a privilegedplace in advising not merely on technicalquestions but on governance arrange-ments, ethical concerns, and inter-national negotiations, despite their lackof expertise. The two reports of theRoyal Society (the United KingdomÕsnational academy of science), alongwith a number of other influentialreports written by groups dominated by





scientists, are evidence of that. Some sci-entists take the view that if one is cleverenough to understand atmosphericphysics then one is also clever enoughto grasp the nuances of politics, socialchange, and ethicsÑwhich donÕt appeartoo hard or to require sustained study.

Livermore scientists were notopposed to nuclear arms control treaties,but they were hostile toward test bans.There is a similarly strong resistanceamong many geoengineers to any regu-lation of research and testing, especiallyby the United Nations. At Livermore,antipathy to test bans was not merelypragmatic. Gusterson divined deepercultural meaning in testing. The Òdisplayof the secret knowledgeÕs powerÓimparted a keen sense of communityamong participants. Weapons testswere Òpowerful rituals celebratinghuman command over the secrets oflife and deathÓ (Gusterson, 1996: 155,234). They were proof that human mas-tery of dangerous powers could beattained. One might likewise expectthat tests of geoengineering technolo-gies, if successful, would persuadethose carrying them out that technolo-gies of planetary control can be mas-tered. The Promethean view allows oneto rise above the serious objection, posedby Robock and his colleagues (2010), thatthe only way to know whether sulfateaerosol spraying would work would befull deployment.

Those who worked at Livermoreduring the Cold War found a culture inwhich brilliant and often quirky scien-tists dreamed up and tested big techno-logical schemes to protect AmericansÕfreedom and advance US strategic inter-ests around the world. In the 1980s, theReagan administration poured morethan a billion dollars into Livermore to

fund the Star Wars program, which pro-mised to develop a fleet of nuclear-pow-ered satellites that could use enormouslypowerful lasers to vaporize Russian mis-siles. At the heart of Star Wars wereEdward Teller and his prot�g� LowellWood (Goodell, 2010).

With the collapse of the Soviet Unionand the end of the arms race, Livermorelost much of its raison dÕ�tre. Its leadersargued that weapons scientists were stillneeded to respond to threats from emer-gent nuclear nations and terroristgroups, but they also began to look fornew opportunities to keep the laboratoryrelevant. As it happened, nuclear weap-ons research spilled over into atmos-pheric science, since one of its taskswas to evaluate the effects of a nuclearexchange on the climate. That taskrequired the development of sophisti-cated models to track the distributionof smoke, dust, and radiation. This cap-acity was expanded in the 1990s to studythe effect on global climate of risinggreenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In 1997, the laboratory published apaper by Teller, Wood, and RoderickHyde, a senior scientist at Livermore,titled ÒGlobal Warming and Ice Ages:Prospects for Physics-based Modulationof Global Change.Ó It was one of the firstpapers to argue forcefully in favor of sul-fate aerosol spraying as a response toglobal warming, praising technologicalinterventions instead of Òinternationalmeasures focused on prohibitionsÓ(Teller et al., 1997: 3). Expressing cyni-cism toward democratic decisionmaking, the authors argued that a newtechnology of solar radiation manage-ment would be able to cut through inter-national disagreements and win overpublic support. Teller wrote soon after:ÒLet us play to our uniquely American

Hamilton 7




strengths in innovation and technologyto offset any global warming by theleast costly means possibleÓ (Teller,1997).

Five years later, Teller, Wood, andHyde returned to the theme with apaper arguing even more strongly thatthe world should regulate solar radiationinstead of attempting to reduce green-house gas emissions (Teller et al.,2002). Still casting doubt on the scienceof climate change, they set out ways tomanage solar radiation actively, whichthey insisted was the most practicalapproach to global warming. Claimingthat the environmental risks of a solarshield would be Ònegligible,Ó the ques-tion, they wrote, was no longer whetherwe should engage in solar geoengineer-ing but only how best to do it. Not onlywould geoengineering be technicallyeasier, politically preferable, and envir-onmentally benign, the Livermore trioargued, but sulfate aerosol sprayingwould have large economic benefitsÑinthe form of reduced skin cancer rates andimproved agricultural productivity dueto higher carbon dioxide concentra-tionsÑthat would render it worth under-taking even in the absence of anyproblematic global warming.

Man over nature

As the story of Livermore suggests, thebelief in humankindÕs right to exercisetotal mastery over nature defines apowerful strand of US technologicalthinking that became dominant in thepost-war decades. It was challenged bythe rise of the environmental movementin the 1970s and 1980s. Now it seems thatthe challenge caused only a temporaryretreat and that Promethean thinking isstaging a powerful comeback in the face

of climate crisis, a thinking bluntlyexpressed by Lowell Wood in defense ofgeoengineering: ÒWeÕve engineeredevery other environment we liveinÑwhy not the planet?Ó (Goodell, 2006).

It is apparent too in David KeithÕsworldview. After reminding us of theenormous, Earth-shaping power ofgeoengineering technologies,7 Keithconcludes that Òthere do not . . . appearto be physical limits that prevent atechnologically advanced civilizationfrom tailoring radiative forcing [sun-light] in an arbitrary mannerÓ (2013:103). The new twist, which many willfind disturbing, is that he believes thereis nothing inherently desirable about thestable and clement Holocene climate theEarth enjoys today. As long as climateengineering is performed slowlyenough for humans and ecosystems toadapt, Keith sees no reason why weshould not use our technological powerto create a quite different climate onEarth. And since the climate system isinseparably linked to all other parts ofthe Earth system, that means he viewswith equanimity the creation of a newEarth by human means.

It is perhaps for this reason that DavidKeith and other Òeco-pragmatistsÓ seemmystified by the instinctual hostilitymany feel toward the idea of creatingan artificial planet through climateengineering. In his book, Keith remindsus of his love of the wild, but his wordssuggest that he has no philosophicalcommitment to the Earth as we know it.He sees nothing special in the climate ofthe Holocene, the 10,000-year epoch thatpermitted civilization to flourish. Forhim, a natural Earth has no intrinsicclaim over a human-made one.

Perhaps injudiciously, Keith exp-resses a sentiment felt by some other





geoengineering researchersÑhis excite-ment about the prospect of using solargeoengineering to transform the Earth.He speaks approvingly of humanityÕsÒnew powers to shape the planetaryenvironmentÓ and of his hope thatwe will use them to Òbuild a thrivingcivilization.Ó His final words expresshis Òdelight in our new toolsÓ (2013:173”174). For many, that the worldÕs lead-ing geoengineering advocate should finddelight in the prospect of using technol-ogy to create a new Earth will come as ashock, and only increase their anxietythat the world could soon embark onthe most dangerous experiment everconceived.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from anyfunding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. Robock et al. (2010) note that the coolingeffect of large volcanic eruptions can bedetected but that of small ones cannot:Ò . . . weather and climate variability precludeobservation of the climate response without alarge, decade-long forcing. . . . The signal ofsmall injections would be indistinguishablefrom the noise of weather and climatevariations.Ó

2. When I put the objection to Keith in a publicforum in October 2013, he responded bysaying that it was he, not Alan Robock, whofirst identified the problem and that wewould need not 10 years of data but 20.

3. While publishing and promoting papersadvocating geoengineering as a substitutefor mitigation, the Heartland Instituteclaims it does not have a position on geoen-gineering (Appell, 2013).

4. I am grateful to Graham Farmelo for supply-ing me with a copy of this hard-to-obtaindocument.

5. TellerÕs Project Plowshare, launched at theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

aimed to use nuclear explosions to movemountains, open up canals, and gouge outnew ports.

6. They include Lowell Wood, Roderick Hyde,Ken Caldeira, Mike MacCracken, Greg Rau,Ron Lehman, Jane Long, Brad Allenby,Govindasamy Bala, and Haroon Kheshgi(Hamilton, 2013).

7. ÒThese technologies give humanity unprece-dented leverage over global climate and thatleverage can be used for good or illÓ (Keith,2013: 111).

References

Aldhous P (2013) CIA spooks investigate geoengineer-ing to fix climate. New Scientist, July 19. Availableat: www.newscientist.com/article/dn23898-cia-spooks-investigate-geoengineering-to-fix-climate.html.

Appell D (2013) Strange bedfellows? Climate changedenial and support for geoengineering. YaleForum on Climate Change & the Media, October30. Available at: www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/10/strange-bedfellows-climate-change-denial-and-support-for-geoengineering.

Brendon P (2013) ChurchillÕs Bomb: A Hidden Historyof Science, War and Politics by Graham Farmelo ”review. Guardian, September 20. Available at:www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/20/churchills-bomb-graham-farmelo-review.

Broad WJ (1992) TellerÕs War: The Top-Secret StoryBehind the Star Wars Deception. New York: Simon& Schuster.

Churchill WS (1937) Life in a world controlled by thescientists. News of the World, November 7.

Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by strato-spheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolvea policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77(3”4):211”219.

Farmelo G (2013) ChurchillÕs Bomb: A Hidden Historyof Science, War and Politics. London: Faber andFaber.

Goodell J (2006) Can Dr. Evil save the world? RollingStone, November 3.

Goodell J (2010) How to Cool the Planet: Geoengineer-ing and the Audacious Quest to Fix EarthÕs Climate.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Gusterson H (1996) Nuclear Rites: A WeaponsLaboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Hamilton C (2013) Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Ageof Climate Engineering. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Hamilton 9




Keith D (2013) A Case for Climate Engineering. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kintisch E (2009) DARPA to explore geoengineering.Science Insider, March 14. Available at: http://news.sciencemag.org/2009/03/darpa-explore-geoengineering.

Kintisch E (2010) Hack the Planet: ScienceÕs Best Hope-or Worst Nightmare for Averting Climate Cata-strophe. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering maybe a bad idea. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists64(2): 14”18.

Robock A, Bunzl M, Kravitz B, et al. (2010) A test forgeoengineering? Science 327(5965): 530”531.

Shapin S (2013) Fat Man. London Review of Books35(18): 36”39.

Teller E (1997) The planet needs a sunscreen. WallStreet Journal, October 17. Available at: www.hoo-ver.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791.

Teller E, Wood L, and Hyde R (1997) Global warmingand ice ages: Prospects for physics-based modula-tion of global change. Paper prepared for submittalto the 22nd International Seminar on PlanetaryEmergencies. Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, August 15. Available at: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/231636.pdf.

Teller E, Hyde R, and Wood L (2002) Active climatestabilization: Practical physics-based approaches

to prevention of climate change. Article submittedto the National Academy of Engineering Sympo-sium. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,April 18. Available at: http://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/244671.pdf.

Author biography

Clive Hamilton is an Australian author andprofessor of public ethics at the Centre forApplied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a jointcenter of Charles Sturt University and the Uni-versity of Melbourne. From 1994 to 2008, he wasthe executive director of the Australia Institute,a progressive think tank he founded. In 2012, theAustralian federal government appointed Ham-ilton to its Climate Change Authority. His booksinclude Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of ClimateChange (Black Inc. Agenda, 2007), Requiem for aSpecies: Why We Resist the Truth about ClimateChange (Earthscan, 2010), and Earthmasters:The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering(Yale University Press, 2013). He is now writinga book on the Anthropocene.




Documents

Hamilton - Geoengineering and the Politics of Science