ABSTRACT
Solar geoengineering is a technocratic and polarized conversation. There is a tug-of-war over what can be known about solar geoengineering – its balance of benefits vs. risks, and by extension, whether it should be integrated into climate strategy in the era of the Paris Agreement – between different networks of experts and civil society organizations. Using a central concept in science and technology studies – boundary work – this chapter asks: how is knowledge about solar geoengineering created? Moreover, what does this knowledge do, and how does it further shape governance? This chapter examines two linked spheres of activity: expert assessment and outdoor experimentation. Within these spheres, it uncovers a “mission-oriented” mode of technical, model-centric, policy-facing assessment, matched against a more “precautionary” mode of qualitative, deliberation-based, society-facing assessment with critical leanings. Throughout, the chapter uncovers examples of politics in the conduct of science: in representation (who predominates, and who is missing?), procedure (who decides and how?), epistemology (how do actors know what they know?), and outcome (what avenues for action are made prominent, and what alternatives are delegitimized?).
