1 Tollefson (2018). For an overview of the ScoPEx project, see, e.g., Dykema and others (2014).

2 I will use the term ‘climate engineering’ throughout this book as I find that it captures most accurately what is at stake in these debates – namely efforts to deliberately intervene in and potentially control the Earth’s climate.

3 Stilgoe (2015).

4 SPICE was a collaboration of the University of Bristol, the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and the University of Edinburgh (see SPICE (2018); see also Hulme (2014: 57) or Stilgoe (2015) for a detailed overview of the planned experiment; see also Doughty (2019)).

5 Stilgoe (2015: 12).

6 Izrael et al. (2009a: 226, 272). It seems surprising how little attention this experiment has received, especially since Yuri Izrael was a renowned scientist, having served as Vice-Chairman to both the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as well as the IPCC (World Meteorological Organization (2019); see also Doughty (2019: 102)).

7 Izrael et al. (2009b)

8 See, for example, the EPEACE project, which generated relevant insights to SRM research (Russell et al. (2013), but also Russell, (2012)). For the case of ocean fertilisation studies, see Lawrence and Crutzen in Blackstock and Low (2019: 90); Williamson et al. (2012). In addition, Oceanos, a marine research organisation lists an overview of ocean seeding experiments on their website (Oceanos 2018).

9 Wills in US House of Representatives (2009: 231), emphasis added.

10 Robock and Kravitz in Blackstock and Low (2019: 97, 98).

11 Holly Jean Buck also speaks of ‘binaries’ in this context (Buck 2019).

12 Stephen Hilgartner (2000: 4).

13 Fialka (2020).

14 See also Brian Wynne in this context, who stresses the importance to study ‘the ultimate contingency of saliency and meaning’ for science studies (Wynne 2003: 404).

15 An interactive world map which tracks climate engineering projects around the globe is maintained by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, a German think tank affiliated with the Greens’ Party, together with the ETC Group, a biotechnology watchdog.

16 XPrize (2021).

17 For the ISO case, see, e.g., International Organization for Standardization 2021; Möller 2021. For a critical account of the IPCC case and its consequences, see, e.g., Beck and Mahony (2018).

18 For the case of the United States, see, e.g., US House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology (2009); US House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology (2010b). For the case of the UK, see, in particular, Science and Technology Committee (2010). For the case of Germany, see, e.g., Deutscher Bundestag (2010); Umwelt Bundesamt (2011); Die Deutsche Bundesregierung (2012). For an account of the Russian case, see, e.g., Lukacs, Goldenberg, Vaughan (2013); Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013). For an account of Indian initiatives, see Bala and Gupta (2017, 2019). For the case of China, see, e.g., Edney and Symons (2014); Cao, Gao, and Zhao (2015); Temple (2017); see also Bala and Gupta (2019: 24). Moore et al. suggest that many Chinese researchers were introduced to climate engineering measures through a number of scientific meetings that the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) held in 2011 (Moore et al. 2016). For the Australian experiment, see, e.g., Readfearn (2020a, 2020b). For a comparative overview over the debate of climate engineering in international policy contexts, see, e.g., Huttunen, Skytén, and Hildén, (2015).

19 US Senate (2015: 12), emphasis added.

20 Shepherd in US House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology (2009: 110).

21 For a general classification of climate engineering approaches, see, e.g., Royal Society (2009: 6); National Research Council (2015a; 2015b).

22 See, e.g., US National Research Council (2015b: vii). Jim Fleming, for example, points out that ‘[…] an engineering practice defined by its scale (geo) need not be constrained by its stated purpose […]’ and ‘to constrain the essence of something that does not exist by its stated purpose, techniques, or goals is misleading at best’ (Fleming 2010: 228).

23 Eyal (2013: 863).

24 This assumption separates this analysis from the agenda of the social problems literature, which has, for a large part, sought to demonstrate the constructivist core of social problems. For an illuminating critique of this strand of literature, see, e.g., Woolgar and Pawluch 1985. Eyal has instructively criticised the false dichotomy between ‘what is real/objective and what is merely attributed/socially constructed’ in some of these works (Eyal 2013: 864, fn.2).

25 Allan (2017: 131).

26 For the notion of ‘assembling’ governance objects, see, e.g., Allan (2017). For scholarship that has developed a concept of expertise in relation to societal problems – that is, asking how societal problems become the objects of expert labour – see, e.g., Mitchell (2002); Eyal (2013; 2019); Abbott (2014).

27 For accounts of the interrelation of science and politics as two distinct social systems, see, especially, Weingart (1983; 2001); Luhmann (1990; 2013); Stichweh (2006; 2015). For accounts on the interrelation of science and politics as two distinct fields of social practice, see particularly, Bourdieu (1998; 2004); Baker (2017).

28 For a relational perspective on scientific expertise, see particularly Eyal (2013, 2019); Grundmann (2017).

29 For this notion of structured observation, see, e.g., Luhmann (1990: 645). The concept of modes of observation also relates to Allan’s ‘modes of abstraction’ or Latour’s notion of transcriptions. It is about making an issue legible across a variety of contexts (Allan 2017: 138).

30 Edwards (2010).

31 Mitchell (1998); Fleming (2010). See for this context also Scott (1998).

32 Mitchell (1998: 90).

33 See especially Eyal (2013).

34 See Government Publishing Office (2018) for an overview of all available collections. The document corpus comprises 106 documents (see Appendix: Document Corpus for a detailed list of the included records). This book’s analysis places a particular focus on the documents before 2015 as it seeks to explain the controversial arrival of these measures as a potential tool against climate change on the US political agenda.

35 Ann Keller fittingly uses the notion of a ‘window’ in the context of congressional hearings, which provide insights ‘into how events both internal and external to Congress shape legislative debates’ (2009: 95).

36 Keller (2009: 95).

37 For this concept of politics, see, e.g., the early political sociology of Luhmann e.g. (2015: 35–44); but also, his later monograph on the topic, (2002: 81–88).

38 For the temporality of hearings, see also Keller (2009: 95).

39 Keller (2009: 95).

40 See also Hilgartner (2000), who examined scientific assessment reports to study expert advice as ‘public drama’.