Rethinking Geoengineering Governance Utilizing the Playing God Argument: Considerations of Knowledge, Control, and Benevolence

TL;DR

The paper explores how the 'playing God' argument can improve governance of geoengineering to address climate change.

Contribution

It introduces a novel governance framework emphasizing control, knowledge, and benevolence for geoengineering.

Findings

The 'playing God' critique can inform better geoengineering governance.

Current governance proposals lack actionable mechanisms for control, knowledge, and benevolence.

A three-legged governance approach can address ethical concerns and improve geoengineering oversight.

Abstract

Because greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow, it is increasingly challenging to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius. As such, there is a growing debate on whether or not to deploy geoengineering to reduce warming. Geoengineering is controversial, and many arguments have been raised against it, including the “playing God” critique. When understood through the philosopher Moti Mizrahi’s reinterpretation, the playing God critique does not eliminate the possibility of using geoengineering, but rather informs how its governance can be improved. We use Mizrahi’s interpretation of the playing God critique to claim that the existing governance literature lacks sufficiently actionable proposals which duly incorporate three components of effective governance: control, knowledge, and benevolence. We then go on to suggest some actionable governance mechanisms aimed at supporting the benevolent use of geoengineering. We believe that a three legged approach to geoengineering governance can both respond to the playing God critique and encourage the development of a more robust, well rounded governance regime.