Solar geoengineering research programs on national agendas: a comparative analysis of Germany, China, Australia, and the United States

Joshua B. Horton (), Kerryn Brent, Zhen Dai, Tyler Felgenhauer, Oliver Geden, Jan McDonald, Jeffrey McGee, Felix Schenuit and Jianhua Xu
Additional contact information
Joshua B. Horton: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Kerryn Brent: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Zhen Dai: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Tyler Felgenhauer: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Oliver Geden: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Jan McDonald: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Jeffrey McGee: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Felix Schenuit: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government
Jianhua Xu: Harvard Kennedy School: Harvard University John F Kennedy School of Government

Climatic Change, 2023, vol. 176, issue 4, No 10, 18 pages

Abstract: Abstract Solar geoengineering (SG), or the proposed use of technology to reflect sunlight back to space as a means of partially counteracting climate change, requires systematic research funded by public bodies, yet no dedicated national SG research programs (“programs”) currently exist. To explain why and understand how things might change in the future, we add concepts from role theory, a research tradition focused on international relations and foreign policy analysis, to the Multiple Streams Approach, a theoretical framework developed to study agenda setting at the national level, to assess policy processes related to SG research in four countries: Germany, China, Australia, and the United States (US). The results of our analysis indicate that, among these four states, only the US might plausibly consider initiating a program under present conditions. Germany, China, and Australia appear likely to seriously consider comparable efforts only in response to a US program, although their reasons for doing so and specific program designs would differ. The source of this variation, we argue, is the different foreign policy paradigms—or “national role conceptions”—prevailing in each state, which mediate between domestic and international politics and help define which policy proposals qualify as viable in different countries. From a policy perspective, this suggests that the global trajectory of SG depends disproportionately on developments in the US.

Keywords: Solar geoengineering; MSA; Programs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:climat:v:176:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10584-023-03516-1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10584

DOI: 10.1007/s10584-023-03516-1

Access Statistics for this article

Climatic Change is currently edited by M. Oppenheimer and G. Yohe

More articles in Climatic Change from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().