Chapter 1 Introduction Abstract This introduction provides preliminary remarks and clarifications on structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise expla- nations of the theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book including feminist contextual empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, and technofeminism. Keywords Geoengineering · Feminist empiricism · Feminist standpoint theory · Technofeminism · Sociology of science studies The complicated relationship between gender, natural or physical science, technology and climate change has become a subject of a intense discussion in a variety of settings from academia and governments to civil society and think tanks. Yet most of these bodies tend to focus on one or two subjects often at the expense of others. On the topic of climate change, as a sociological phenomenon, a trans or interdisciplinary approach is needed in order to map complex connections between diverse areas. Because it is difficult to garner enough expertise in order to, for example, answer questions about how the generation of scientific knowledge about climate change affects gender norms, or what role gender plays in the construction of technological artifacts that might revolutionize how we generate power, it is important to be clear about what questions require answering, what gaps in knowledge remain, how this can be addressed, and whose interests does maintaining the status quo serve. This book aims to provide a set of unique perspectives on the interconnections between the traditionally “silo-ized” categories of gender, climate science, and cli- mate technologies using climate geoengineering as a case study. My objective is to critically assess climate geoengineering science, modeling, and symbolism/dis- course, by using contemporary feminist approaches to science and technology studies. In doing so, I seek to expose a unique set of challenges posed by climate change and technological innovation by drawing on feminist contextual empiricism (FCE) primarily but also feminist standpoint theory (FST) and technofeminism. Central to this approach is the thesis that the feminist tenets of diversity, pluralism, situated knowledge, values, community, and sociality pose significant challenges to aggressive solutions to climate change including that of climate geoengineering. In this introduction, I begin with some preliminary remarks and clarifications on structure and definitions used throughout the text, followed by a few concise explanations of theoretical frameworks and a robust justification of methodology and choice of literature. A basic definition of geoengineering is provided as well as a discussion of the feminist frameworks deployed throughout the book. I maintain that feminist contextual empiricism, as articulated by Helen Longino, provides the most persuasive critique of geoengineering by using feminist science studies. Feminist standpoint theory and technofeminism deliver further insights that make up for a handful of shortcomings of the feminist empiricist approach. Methodology/Theoretical Approach Methodologically, the approach I take is, first and foremost, multiperspectival with respect to the contributions of feminist perspectives on science and technology articulated above. While these frameworks have considerable differences in how they take up the relationship between science, technology and gender, harnessing contributions from all three, while focusing predominantly on FCE, provides a theoretically rich analytic framework from which significant insights can be assembled. This study is also disciplinarily pluralist since, in that in addition to pulling from contributions of the above noted feminist perspectives, also incorporated are knowledge and ideas from the natural sciences, computer science, political science, inter- national law, social constructivism and public policy. Yet, rather than resulting in a discordant cacophony of divergent perspectives, this path has been both theoretically fruitful and analytically complementary since, …a thorough-going disciplinary pluralism […] suggests that sometimes the perspectives don’t fit nicely together on the same plane: they overlap or conflict or cannot both be held at the same time, and yet you need both of them (Kellert 2006: 225). Climate Change and Geoengineering Over the past few years, a surfeit of scientific studies, research proposals, media stories and government reports have coalesced around a solution to climate change that would employ the latest and most cutting edge technologies. These geoengi- neering or climate engineering proposals have garnered a particularly high level of attention not only because of increased levels of media coverage, research invest- ment, and government interest, but also in light of more mainstream mitigation strategies, such as emission cuts and renewable energy technologies, being seen as falling short of the 1.5–2 °C warming limit. These technical solutions are constituted by a wide variety of schemes designed to mitigate climate change through direct interventions aimed at either removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (and sequestering it), or reflecting solar radiation from the earth itself (thereby removing the ability of heat absorbing radiation to warm our climate). The case for increased research into and use of renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal etc.) as a viable, scientifically sound, and less risky path towards addressing climate change, rather than geoenginering, is well established (Panwar et al. 2011; Twidell and Weir 2015; Luderer et al. 2014). Countries around the world have made significant strides in adopting renewables as their price has fallen and investment has risen. Global wind power generation in 2015 hit 7% of total global power generation capacity, natural gas is now the second largest power generation source at 22%, and solar now produces 1% of electricity use globally (World Energy Council 2016). According Ren21, Renewable power generating capacity saw its largest annual increase ever in 2016, with an estimated 161 gigawatts (GW) of capacity added. Total global capacity was up nearly 9% compared to 2015, to almost 2,017 GW at year’s end. The world continued to add more renewable power capacity annually than it added (net) capacity from all fossil fuels combined. In 2016, renewables accounted for an estimated nearly 62% of net additions to global power generating capacity. Solar PV saw record additions and, for the first time, it accounted for more additional capacity, net of decommissioning, than did any other power generating technology. Solar PV represented about 47% of newly installed renewable power capacity in 2016, and wind and hydropower accounted for most of the remainder, contributing 34% and 15 .5%, respectively (Ren21 2017, 20). Yet it is also the case that without a significant acceleration of its use, it is coupled with drastic changes in the patterns of production and consumption, there is a very real danger that the 2 °C target will be exceeded this century. This is where geoengineering as an alternative that requires less in the way of behavioural and economic change becomes quite attractive – particularly to those with vested interested in the economic system remaining as it is including those with decision-making power in the areas of politics and policy making, business and innovation, academia and the press (Sikka 2013; Vidal 2012a, b; Panwar et al. 2011). Addressing its implications through a variety of lenses, while also pushing for sustainable growth models based on renewable energy, as such, has become of paramount importance. Studies on and about geoengineering have been conducted with numerous reports produced by such respected scientific bodies as NASA, The National Research Council (NRC), and The Royal Society (The Royal Society 2009; NRC 2015; NASA 2016). In 2010, a joint report was issued for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology and the United Kingdom House of Commons Science and Technology Committee after a number of hearings held by Congress and Parliament and extensive discussions by government agencies, scientists, academics, policy makers and other ‘stakeholder groups.’ Articles, both critical and optimistic of the process, have appeared in The Guardian, The New York Times, Scientific American, Newsweek, and Bloomberg (Fountain 2015a, b; Snyder-Beattie 2015; Venkataraman 2016; Rostom 2015). 4 1 Introduction Generally, the way in which geoengineering is treated is throughout the book is as an analytical category whose characteristics are imposed on a number of different technologies and processes with a shared end goal. It is these characteristics, assumptions and values that are philosophically, sociologically and politically meaningful. Discussing climate engineering in this way allows for engagement with the interests and background knowledge that inform these technologies and tech- niques without getting too mired in the scientific and technological minutiae – which is necessary for a project like this. These analytical characteristics are heuristically functional in the same way that Weberian ideal types are. For Weber, “An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally