A Case for Climate Engineering
Abstract
Climate engineering -- which could slow the pace of global warming by injecting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere -- has emerged in recent years as an extremely controversial technology. And for good reason: it carries unknown risks and it may undermine commitments to conserving energy. Some critics also view it as an immoral human breach of the natural world. The latter objection, David Keith argues in A Scientist's Case for Climate Engineering, is groundless; we have been using technology to alter our environment for years. But he agrees that there are large issues at stake. A leading scientist long concerned about climate change, Keith offers no naive proposal for an easy fix to what is perhaps the most challenging question of our time; climate engineering is no silver bullet. But he argues that after decades during which very little progress has been made in reducing carbon emissions we must put this technology on the table and consider it responsibly. That doesn't mean we will deploy it, and it doesn't mean that we can abandon efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But we must understand fully what research needs to be done and how the technology might be designed and used. This book provides a clear and accessible overview of what the costs and risks might be, and how climate engineering might fit into a larger program for managing climate change.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
SAI is a palliative intended to ameliorate some symptoms, while doing nothing to cure the underlying disease.
“SAI is a mere palliative intended to ameliorate some symptoms, while doing nothing to cure the underlying disease (Crutzen 2006; Keith 2013).”
From The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100 (2020) · cites this paper as Keith 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weitzman, M. L. (2015) · The Scandinavian Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/sjoe.12120 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Mitigation deterrence and the ”moral hazard" of solar radiation management
McLaren, D. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000445 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100
Smith, W. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
“In this paper, solar geoengineering is not presented as a substitute for mitigation (Keith 2013, Keith and Irvine 2016, Keith and Dowlatabadi 1992).”
BackgroundA critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern
Reynolds, J. (2015) · The Anthropocene Review · doi:10.1177/2053019614554304 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
McKinnon, C. (2019) · Environmental Politics · doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1450344 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
The ethics of negative emissions
Lenzi, D. (2018) · Global Sustainability · doi:10.1017/sus.2018.5 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling
McLaren, D. P. (2018) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.021 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome
Reynolds, J. L., Parker, A., & Irvine, P. (2016) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1002/2016ef000416 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk
Tang, A., & Kemp, L. (2021) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.720312 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“Existing political order may become undone by SAI (Keith, 2013; Corry, 2017).”
BackgroundSmith, J. P., Dykema, J. A., & Keith, D. W. (2018) · Earth and Space Science · doi:10.1002/2018ea000370 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Self-citationShearer, C., West, M., Caldeira, K., & Davis, S. J. (2016) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
“SLAP activists can be aggressive, and academics assessing climate geoengineering using computermodels have been subjected to threats for their alleged role in a secret sprayingprogram (Keith2013).”
BackgroundVisions of Climate Control: Solar Radiation Management in Climate Simulations
Wiertz, T. (2016) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243915606524 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Keith, D.
- Corresponding author
- Keith, David
- ORCID
- Keith, David
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 2013
- OpenAlex
- W381022466
- Cited by
- 408
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 20
- FWCI
- 17.69
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- geoengineering, solar radiation management, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change mitigation, ethics of geoengineering, energy conservation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review