Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:25:35.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Realist climate ethics: Promoting climate ambition within the Classical Realist tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2018

Jonathan Symons Open the ORCID record for Jonathan Symons [Opens in a new window]
Jonathan Symons*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What is a Classical Realist analysis of climate ethics and politics? Classical Realist ethical analysis differs from ideal normative theory in that it addresses state decision-makers rather than individuals, assumes highly imperfect compliance with the demands of justice, and is concerned with feasibility and transition rather than end-states. Classical Realists urge leaders to prioritise state security over private moral concerns, to assess rival policies against their likely consequences and to seek the ‘lesser evil’ among feasible choices. But how does Realism respond when the prudent pursuit of state security risks rendering much of the planet uninhabitable? In the 1950s, the development of the hydrogen bomb created just such a dilemma as status quo politics now carried a significant risk of thermonuclear omnicide. In response, Hans Morgenthau argued that states should manage systemic risk by working in concert to safeguard expanded, collective national interests. The Classical Realist mode of thought suggests an analogous response to systemic climate risks: states’ conceptions of national interest must expand to include cooperative system-preservation alongside traditional security concerns. Classical Realist arguments might then be mobilised to overcome resistance from vested interests and to support state-directed low carbon innovation, adaptation and mitigation agreements that prioritise ambition over distributional justice.

Keywords

RealismParis AgreementConsequentialismClimate ChangeSolar Geoengineering
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 141 - 160
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hayes, Jarrod and James, Patrick, ‘Theory as thought: Britain and German unification’, Security Studies, 23:2 (2014), pp. 399–429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, for example, Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni, ‘The Kyoto Treaty and the pursuit of relative gains’, Environmental Politics, 17:1 (2008), pp. 40–57 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Victor, David, Global Warming Gridlock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Purdon, Mark, ‘Neoclassical realism and international climate change politics: Moral imperative and political constraint in international climate finance’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 17:3 (2014), pp. 301–338 Google Scholar.

3 Avey, Paul C. and Desch, Michael C., ‘What do policymakers want from us? Results of a survey of current and former senior national security decision makers’, International Studies Quarterly, 58:2 (2014), pp. 227–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldstein, Judith and Keohane, Robert, Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 9 Google Scholar.

4 See Victor, Global Warming Gridlock and Purdon, ‘Neoclassical realism’, which both acknowledge the potential contribution of Realist climate ethics. Posner and Weisbach elaborate a consequentialist climate ethics organised around the concept of ‘International Paretianism’ that overlaps with Classical Realist ethics in Posner, Eric A. and Weisbach, David, Climate Change Justice (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 See Craig, Campbell, The Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr Morgenthau and Waltz (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, Michael, ‘Why ideas matter in International Relations, Hans Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the moral construction of power politics’, International Organization, 58:4 (2004), pp. 633–665 Google Scholar; Williams, Michael, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, Volume 100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Molloy, Sean, ‘Aristotle, Epicurus, Morgenthau and the political ethics of the lesser evil’, Journal of International Political Theory, 5:1 (2009), pp. 94–112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scheuerman, William, The Realist Case for Global Reform (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011)Google Scholar; and McQueen, Alison, Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Williams, The Realist Tradition, p. 104.

7 Molloy, ‘Aristotle, Epicurus’, p. 96.

8 Warren, Martin, ‘Max Weber’s liberalism for a Nietzschean world’, American Political Science Review, 82:2 (1988), pp. 31–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 31); Williams, ‘Why ideas matter’, pp. 643–57.

9 Williams, ‘Why ideas matter’.

10 Acuto, Michele, ‘The new climate leaders?’, Review of International Studies, 39:4 (2013), pp. 835–857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bulkeley, Harriet, ‘Can cities realise their climate potential? Reflections on COP21 Paris and beyond’, Local Environment, 20:11 (2015), pp. 1405–1409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuyper, Jonathan W. and Bäckstrand, Karin, ‘Accountability and representation: Nonstate actors in UN climate diplomacy’, Global Environmental Politics, 16:2 (2016), pp. 61–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernstein, Steven and Hoffman, Matthew, ‘The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments’, Policy Sciences (2018), pp. 1–23 Google Scholar.

11 Gray, C. Boyden and Rivkin, David B., ‘A “no regrets” environmental policy’, Foreign Policy, 83 (1991), pp. 47–65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 52).

12 See Craig, The Glimmer of a New Leviathan.

13 See Valentini, Laura, ‘Ideal vs. non‐ideal theory: a conceptual map’, Philosophy Compass, 7:9 (2012), pp. 654–664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 660).

14 IPCC [core writing team, R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer (eds)], Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Table 2.2, available at: {https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf} accessed 25 March 2018.

15 Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 93 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kirshner, Jonathan, ‘The tragedy of offensive realism, Classical Realism and the rise of China’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:1 (2012), pp. 53–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Kirshner, ‘The tragedy’, p. 56.

17 Osborn, Ronald, ‘Noam Chomsky and the Realist tradition’, Review of International Studies, 35:2 (2009), pp. 351–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Morgenthau, Hans J., ‘Another “great debate”: the national interest of the United States’, American Political Science Review, 46:4 (1952), pp. 961–988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Navari, Cornelia, ‘Hans Morgenthau and the national interest’, Ethics & International Affairs, 30:1 (2016), pp. 47–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Pin-Fat, Véronique, ‘The metaphysics of the national interest and the “mysticism” of the nation-state: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau’, Review of International Studies, 31:2 (2005), pp. 217–236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Mearsheimer, John, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001), p. 371 Google Scholar.

21 Weitzman, Martin, ‘On modelling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91:1 (2009), pp. 1–19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Osborn, ‘Noam Chomsky’, pp. 351–70.

23 Lacy, Mark, Security and Climate Change, International Relations and the Limits of Realism (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar.

24 Kim, Sung-Young and Thurbon, Elizabeth, ‘Developmental environmentalism: Explaining South Korea’s ambitious pursuit of green growth’, Politics & Society, 43:2 (2015), pp. 213–240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Karlsson, Rasmus and Kim, Hee‐Yoon, ‘Korea and climate change: Unpacking the domestic media discourse’, Asian Politics & Policy, 7:2 (2015), pp. 332–336 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hepburn, Cameron and Teytelboym, Alexander, ‘Climate change policy after Brexit’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33:1 (2017), S144–S154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Vezirgiannidou, ‘The Kyoto Treaty’, pp. 207–10.

26 Pachauri and Meyer (eds), Climate Change 2014, p. 24.

27 Jos Olivier, Klara Schure, and Jeroen Peters, Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2017 Report (The Hague: PBL Netherlands, 2017).

28 Terhalle, Maximilian and Depledge, Joanna, ‘Great-power politics, order transition, and climate governance’, Climate Policy, 13:5 (2013), pp. 572–588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 IEA, Key World Energy Statistics 2017 (OECD/IEA, 2017).

30 Keohane, R. O. and Victor, D. G., ‘Cooperation and discord in global climate policy’, Nature Climate Change, 6:6 (2016), pp. 570–575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 IPCC [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J. C. Minx (eds)], ‘Summary for Policymakers’, in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014). p. 15.

32 IPPC [O. Edenhofer et al. (eds)], ‘Summary for Policymakers’, p. 15, Table SPM.2.

33 Kennedy, Andrew, ‘Powerhouses or pretenders? Debating China’s and India’s emergence as technological powers’, The Pacific Review, 28:2 (2015), pp. 281–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Ricke, Katharine L. and Caldeira, Ken, ‘Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission’, Environmental Research Letters, 9:12 (2014), p. 124002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helm, Dieter, ‘Government failure, rent-seeking, and capture: the design of climate change policy’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 26:2 (2010), pp. 182–196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Susanne Dröge and Oliver Geden, After the Paris Agreement: New Challenges for the EU’s Leadership in Climate Policy (Berlin, 2016 SWP Comments 19/2016), p. 3, available at: {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-46786-7} accessed 25 March 2018; Hepburn and Teytelboym, ‘Climate change’.

36 Victor, David G., Akimoto, Keigo, Kaya, Yoichi, Yamaguchi, Mitsutsune, Cullenward, Danny, and Hepburn, Cameron, ‘Prove Paris was more than paper promises’, Nature, 548:7665 (2017), pp. 25–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Peters, Glen, Andrew, Robbie, Solomon, Susan, and Friedlingstein, Pierre, ‘Measuring a fair and ambitious climate agreement using cumulative emissions’, Environmental Research Letters, 10:10 (2015), p. 105004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Ang, B. W. and Su, Bin, ‘Carbon emission intensity in electricity production: a global analysis’, Energy Policy, 94 (2016), pp. 56–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Ted Nordhaus, ‘The two degree delusion’, Foreign Affairs (8 February 2018), available at: {https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2018-02-08/two-degree-delusion} accessed 25 March 2018.

40 Claims concerning a Realist turn at Copenhagen are discussed in Bernstein, Steven, Betsill, Michele, Hoffmann, Matthew, and Paterson, Matthew, ‘A tale of two Copenhagens: Carbon markets and climate governance’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39:1 (2010), pp. 162–164 Google Scholar.

41 See Vezirgiannidou, ‘The Kyoto Treaty’.

42 Bodansky, Daniel, ‘The legal character of the Paris Agreement’, RECIEL, 25:2 (2016), pp. 142–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Pickering, Jonathan, Vanderheiden, Steve, and Miller, Seumas, ‘“If equity’s in, we’re out”: Scope for fairness in the next global climate agreement’, Ethics and International Affairs, 26:4 (2012), pp. 423–443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 413).

44 Natasha Geiling and Todd Stern, ‘After the Paris Climate Agreement, countries of the world “are not going back”’, Climate Progress (15 December 2015), available at: {thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/15/3732172/todd-stern-paris-climate-agreement/} accessed 18 November 2017.

45 Paris COP Decision Paragraph 52, Dec. 12, 2015, UN. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, available at: {https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf.} accessed 25 March 2018.

46 IISD, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) 12:663 (15 December 2015), available at: {http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12663e.html} accessed 18 November 2017.

47 Bodanksy, ‘The legal character’, p. 10.

48 Keohane, Robert O. and Oppenheimer, Michael, ‘Paris: Beyond the climate dead end through pledge and review?’, Politics and Governance, 4:3 (2016), pp. 142–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Victor, David, ‘What the Framework Convention on Climate Change teaches us about cooperation on climate change’, Politics and Governance, 4:3 (2016), pp. 133–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 UNFCCC, FCCC/CP/2015/7 30, ‘Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions’ (October 2015), available at: {http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf, p 44} accessed 18 November 2017.

50 See Peters, Glen P., Le Quéré, Corinne, Andrew, Robbie M., Canadell, Josep G., Friedlingstein, Pierre, Ilyina, Tatiana, Jackson, Rob, Joos, Fortunat, Ivar Korsbakken, Jan, McKinley, Galen A., Sitch, Stephen, and Tans, Pieter, ‘Towards real-time verification of CO2 emissions’, Nature Climate Change, 7:12 (2017), p. 848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Pachauri and Meyer (eds), Climate Change 2014.

52 Uncertainty over the ‘emissions budget’ consistent with avoiding 2 °C has increased since 2017. Glen P. Peters, ‘Beyond carbon budgets’, Nature Geoscience (14 May 2018), available at: doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0142-4.

53 Anderson, Kevin, ‘Duality in climate science’, Nature Geoscience, 8:12 (2015), pp. 898–900 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Peters, Glen, ‘The “best available science” to inform 1.5 °C policy policy choices’, Nature Climate Change, 6:7 (2016), p. 646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Bodansky, Daniel, ‘The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A new hope?’, American Journal of International Law, 110:2 (2016), pp. 288–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Barack Obama, ‘Statement by the President on the Paris Climate Agreement’ (12 December 2015), available at: {https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/12/statement-president-paris-climate-agreement} accessed 18 November 2017. Of course, the same justification might have been offered in respect of the Kyoto Protocol; however Realists always viewed Kyoto with scepticism because it handed relative gains to China and other potential US rivals.

57 Victor, David G., ‘Why Paris worked: a different approach to climate diplomacy’, Yale Environment, 360 (2015), p. 15 Google Scholar.

58 Bodansky, Daniel, ‘The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: a commentary’, Yale J. International Law, 18 (1993), pp. 451–558 Google Scholar (p. 480).

59 Bodansky, Daniel, ‘A tale of two architectures: the once and future UN climate change regime’, Ariz. St. LJ, 43 (2011), p. 697 Google Scholar.

60 Williams, ‘Why ideas matter’, pp. 653–7.

61 Morgenthau, Hans, In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy (New York: Knopf, 1951), pp. 30–35 Google Scholar; Scheuerman, The Realist Case, p. 100.

62 Williams, The Realist Tradition, pp. 1–2

63 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1994 [orig. pub. 1651]), pp. 4, 24 Google Scholar.

64 Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 12–13.

65 Mayerfeld, Jamie, ‘No peace without injustice, Hobbes and Locke on the ethics of peacemaking’, International Theory, 4:2 (2012), pp. 269–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 274); see Morgenthau, In Defense, p. 34.

66 Carr, Edward, The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001)Google Scholar; Morgenthau, In Defense, pp. 35–8.

67 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Knopf, 1967), p. 10 Google Scholar.

68 Morgenthau, Hans, ‘The evil of politics and the ethics of evil’, Ethics, 56:1 (1945), pp. 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, (p. 5); Morgenthau Politics among Nations, p. 7.

69 Morgenthau, Hans, The Purpose of American Politics (New York: Knopf, 1960), pp. 171–174 Google Scholar.

70 Morgenthau, Hans, The Decline of the Democratic Politics: Politics in the Twentieth Century, Volume I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 75–76 Google Scholar.

71 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Love and Justice (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1976), pp. 234–235 Google Scholar.

72 McQueen, Political Realism, p. 172.

73 Morgenthau In Defense, p. 37; Williams, ‘Why ideas matter’; McQueen, Political Realism, p. 175.

74 McQueen, Political Realism, p. 178; McQueen, Alison, ‘Salutary fear? Hans Morgenthau and the politics of existential crisis’, American Political Thought, 6:1 (2017), pp. 78–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Morgenthau, Hans, Decline of Domestic Politics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 73 Google Scholar.

76 Shue, Henry, ‘Ethics, the environment and the changing international order’, International Affairs, 71:3 (1995), pp. 453–461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 457).

77 See, for example, Vanderheiden, Steve, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Khor, Martin, ‘Equity is the gateway to environment ambition, South Centre statement in UNFCCC’, SouthViews (24 July 2012)Google Scholar.

79 See Valentini, ‘Ideal vs. non-ideal theory’, pp. 660–1.

80 Gilabert, Pablo and Lawford‐Smith, Holly, ‘Political feasibility: a conceptual exploration’, Political Studies, 60:4 (2012), pp. 809–825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 818–23).

81 Stemplowska, Zofia, ‘What’s ideal about ideal theory?’, Social Theory and Practice, 34:3 (2008), pp. 319–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

82 Rawls, John, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press. 1993), p. 285 Google Scholar.

83 Gilabert and Lawford‐Smith, ‘Political feasibility’, p. 813.

84 Vanderheiden, Atmospheric Justice, p. 201.

85 Gardiner, Stephen, A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Hayward, Tim, ‘Climate change and ethics’, Nature Climate Change, 2:12 (2012), pp. 843–848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lane, Melissa, ‘Political theory on climate change’, Annual Review of Political Science, 19 (2016), pp. 107–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 112–13).

87 Shue, Henry, ‘Global environment and international inequality’, in Stephen Gardiner, Simon Caney, Dale Jamieson, and Henry Shue (eds), Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 110–111 Google Scholar.

88 Victor, Global Warming, pp. 184–5.

89 Ibid., pp. 182–5.

90 Garnaut, Ross, The Garnaut Review 2011 (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 See Singer, Peter, One World: The Ethics of Globalization (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 45–46 Google Scholar; Meyer, Aubrey, Contraction and Convergence (Devon: Green Books, 2000)Google Scholar. Conversely, Ott and Sachs argue for diminished responsibility where states are ‘locked in’ to high emissions by infrastructure constructed before 1990; see Ott, Hermann and Sachs, Wolfgang, ‘The ethics of international emissions trading’, in Luiz Pinguelli Rosa and Mohan Munasinghe (eds), Ethics, Equity and International Negotiations on Climate Change (Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002), pp. 159–178 Google Scholar.

92 Olivier et al., Trends in Global, p. 43.

93 Loftus, Peter J., Cohen, Armond M., Long, Jane, and Jenkins, Jesse D., ‘A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: What do they tell us about feasibility?’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6:1 (2015), pp. 93–112 Google Scholar.

94 See Posner and Weisbach, Climate Change Justice.

95 Vanderheiden, Steve, ‘Globalizing responsibility for climate change’, Ethics & International Affairs, 25:1 (2011), pp. 65–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 66).

96 Taylor, Mark, ‘Toward an International Relations theory of national innovation rates’, Security Studies, 21:1 (2012), pp. 113–152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 Mazur, Christoph, Contestable, Marcello, Offer, Gregory J., and Brandon, N. P., ‘Assessing and comparing German and UK transition policies for electric mobility’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 14 (2015), pp. 84–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 96).

98 Gray and Rivkin, ‘A “no regrets” environmental policy’, p. 53; Victor, Global Warming, pp. 115–64.

99 See, for example, Stern, Nicholas (ed.), Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (London: HM Treasury, 2006)Google Scholar; Garnaut, The Garnaut Review 2011.

100 Eswaran Somanathan, Thomas Sterner, Taishi Sugiyama, Donald Chimanikire, Navroz K. Dubash, Joseph Kow Essandoh-Yeddu, Solomone Fifita et al., ‘National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions’, in IPCC [O. Edenhofer et al. (eds)], Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, s15.6.6, p. 1178.

101 Shue, Henry, Climate Justice: Vulnerability and Protection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 225–243 Google Scholar.

102 See Lachapelle, Erick, MacNeil, Robert, and Paterson, Matthew, ‘The political economy of decarbonisation: From green energy “race” to green “division of labour”’, New Political Economy, 22:3 (2017), pp. 311–327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mazzucato, Mariana, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths (New York: Anthem Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Sivaram, Varun, Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018)Google Scholar.

103 Stern (ed.), Stern Review; Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 219–23, available at: {http://garnautreview.org.au/}; see also International Energy Agency, ‘Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013: IEA Input to the Clean Energy Ministerial’ (2013), available at: {http://www.iea.org/publications/tcep_web.pdf}.

104 Taylor, ‘Toward an International Relations theory of national innovation rates’.

105 Kennedy, ‘Powerhouses or pretenders’, pp. 281–302.

106 Shue, Climate Justice, pp. 225–43.

107 See Lachapelle, MacNeil, and Paterson, ‘The political economy’; Shue, Henry, ‘Ethics, the environment and the changing international order’, International Affairs, 71:3 (1995), pp. 453–461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Stern (ed.), Stern Review; Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review.

109 Urpelainen, Johannes, ‘Technology investment, bargaining, and international environmental agreements’, International Environmental Agreements, 12:2 (2012), pp. 145–163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Ibid.

111 Brook, Barry W., Edney, Kingsley, Hillerbrand, Rafaela, Karlsson, Rasmus, and Symons, Jonathan, ‘Energy research within the UNFCCC: a proposal to guard against ongoing climate-deadlock’, Climate Policy, 16:6 (2016), pp. 803–813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Estimates suggest existing SG technologies could negate anthropogenic warming for around US $10 billion per year in the next half century, although costs would likely be much higher. See Moriyama, Ryo, Sugiyama, Masahiro, Kurosawa, Atsushi, Masuda, Kooiti, Tsuzuki, Kazuhiro, and Ishimoto, Yuki, ‘The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 22:8 (2017), pp. 1207–1228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goes, Marlos, Tuana, Nancy, and Keller, Klaus, ‘The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering’, Climatic Change, 109:3–4 (2011), pp. 719–944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Morton, Oliver, The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering could Change the World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015)Google Scholar.

114 Goes, Tuana, and Keller, ‘The economics’, pp. 719–944.

115 Preston, Christopher, ‘Re-thinking the unthinkable: Environmental ethics and the presumptive argument against geoengineeering’, Environmental Values, 20:4 (2011), pp. 457–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 476).

116 Keohane, Robert, ‘The global politics of climate change: Challenge for political science’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 48:1 (2015), pp. 19–26 Google Scholar (pp. 22–3); Edney, Kingsley and Symons, Jonathan, ‘China and the blunt temptations of geo-engineering: the role of solar radiation management in China’s strategic response to climate change’, The Pacific Review, 27:3 (2014), pp. 307–332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horton, Joshua B. and Reynolds, Jesse L., ‘The international politics of climate engineering: a review and prospectus for international relations’, International Studies Review, 18:3 (2016), pp. 438–461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 448–50).

117 Ricke, Katharine L., Moreno-Cruz, Juan B., and Caldeira, Ken, ‘Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation’, Environmental Research Letters, 8:1 (2013), p. 014021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Keohane, ‘The global politics of climate change’, p. 23.

119 Eckersley, Robyn, ‘The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures’, Ethics and International Affairs, 24:4 (2010), pp. 367–393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Emmanuel Macron, ‘Discours du Président de la République, Emmanuel Macron, lors de la COP23 à Bonn’ (17 November 2017): available at: {http://www.elysee.fr/declarations/article/discours-du-president-de-la-republique-emmanuel-macron-lors-de-la-cop23-a-bonn/}.

121 Symons, Jonathan, ‘The “non-cooperator pays principle” and the climate standoff’, in Paul Harris (ed.), China’s Responsibility for Climate Change: Ethics, Fairness and Environmental Policy (Bristol: Policy Press, 2011), pp. 99–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 Kirshner, ‘The tragedy’, p. 56.

123 See Cripps, Elizabeth, ‘Climate change, collective harm and legitimate coercion’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14:2 (2011), pp. 171–193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

124 Kincaid, Graciela and Roberts, J. Timmons, ‘No talk, some walk: Obama administration first-term rhetoric on climate change and US international climate budget commitments’, Global Environmental Politics, 13:4 (2013), pp. 41–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.