Belter, CW, Seidel, DJ. A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. WIREs Clim Change 2013, 4:417–427. doi: 10.1002/wcc.229
Unruh, G. Understanding carbon lock‐in. Energy Policy 2000, 28:817–830.
CBD. Geoengineering in Relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Technical and Regulatory Matters. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2012.
Shepherd, J, Caldeira, K, Cox, P, Haigh, J, Keith, D, Launder, B, Mace, G, MacKerron, G, Pyle, J, Rayner, S, et al. Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty. Royal Society Policy Document 2009 10/09:81.
Rayner, S, Heyward, C, Kruger, T, Pidgeon, N, Redgwell, C, Savulescu, J. The Oxford principles. Clim Change 2013, 121:499–512.
Jones, A, Haywood, JM, Alterskjaer, K, Boucher, O, Cole, JNS, Curry, CL, Irvine, PJ, Ji, D, Kravitz, B, Kristjánsson, JE, et al. The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 2013, 118:9743–9752.
Bellamy, R, Chilvers, J, Vaughan, NE, Lenton, TM. A review of climate engineering proposals. WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:597–615.
Arthur, WB. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock‐in by historical events. Econ J 2007, 99:116–131.
Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter; 1980.
David, PA. Path Dependence and the Quest for Historical Economics: One More Chorus in the Ballad of QWERTY. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford; 1997.
Pierson, P. Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 2000, 94:251–267.
Geels, FW. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio‐technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 2004, 33:897–920.
David, PA. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 1985, 75:332–337.
Walker, W. Entrapment in large technology systems: institutional commitment and power relations. Res Policy 2000, 29:833–846.
Konnola, T, Unruh, GC, Carrillo‐hermosilla, J. Prospective voluntary agreements for escaping techno‐institutional lock‐in. Ecol Econ 2006, 57:239–252.
Heffernan, GM. Path dependence, behavioral rules, and the role of entrepreneurship in economic change: the case of the automobile industry. Rev Austrian Econ 2003, 16:45–62.
Shackley, S, Green, K. A conceptual framework for exploring transitions to decarbonised energy systems in the United Kingdom. Energy 2007, 32:221–236.
Cowan, R. Nuclear power reactors: a study in technological lock‐in. J Econ Hist 2008, 50:541–567.
Cowan, R, Gunby, P. Sprayed to death: path dependence, lock‐in and pest control strategies. Econ J 1996, 106:521–542.
Hommels, A. Studying obduracy in the city: toward a productive fusion between technology studies and urban studies. Sci Technol Hum Values 2005, 30:323–351.
Quitzau, M‐B. Water‐flushing toilets: systemic development and path‐dependent characteristics and their bearing on technological alternatives. Technol Soc 2007, 29:351–360.
Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Policy 1982, 11:147–162.
Nelson, R, Winter, S. In search of useful theory of innovation. Res Policy 1977, 5:36–76.
North, D. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
Foxon, TJ. Technological and institutional ‘lock‐in’ as a barrier to sustainable innovation. Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology (ICCEPT) Working Paper, 2002:1–9.
Setterfield, M. A model of institutional hysteresis. J Econ Issues 1993, 27:755–774.
Hathaway, OA. Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 840, 2001.
Rip, A, Kemp, R. %22Technological change%22. In: Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol II. Resources and Technology. 1998, 327–399.
Stirling, A. Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development. STEPS Working Paper 32, 2009.
Delrio, P, Unruh, G. Overcoming the lock‐out of renewable energy technologies in Spain: the cases of wind and solar electricity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2007, 11:1498–1513.
Ho, C. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Fifth Report of Session 2009–2010, The Regulation of Geoengineering.
Hamilton, C. Earthmasters: the dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 2013:247.
Keith, D, Parson, E, Morgan, M. Research on global sun block needed now. Nature 2010, 463:426–427.
Corner, A, Pidgeon, N, Parkhill, K. Perceptions of geoengineering: public attitudes, stakeholder perspectives, and the challenge of ‘upstream’engagement. WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:451–466. doi: 10.1002/wcc.176.
Hamilton, C. No, we should not just ‘at least do the research’. Nature 2013, 496:138.
Jamieson, D. Ethics and intentional climate change. Clim Change 1996, 33:323–336.
Hulme, M. Climate change: climate engineering through stratospheric aerosol injection. Prog Phys Geogr 2012, 36:694–705.
Banerjee, B, Collins, G, Low, S, Blackstock, J. Scenario Planning for Solar Radiation Management. New Haven, CT: Yale Climate and Energy Institute Workshop Report and Scenarios; 2013.
SRMGI. Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative Report 2011, Solar Radiation Management: The Governance of Research. Available at: http://www.srmgi.org/report/.
Stilgoe, J, Watson, M, Kuo, K. Public engagement with biotechnologies offers lessons for the governance of geoengineering research and beyond. PLoS Biol 2013, 11:e1001707.
Bodansky, D. The who, what, and wherefore of geoengineering governance. Clim Change 2013, 121:539–551.
Bracmort, K, Lattanzio, RK. Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service Report for Congress; 2013.
Smolker, R. Geoengineering the sky is not ‘normal’. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel‐smolker/geoengineering‐is‐not‐normal_b_4378849.html. (Accessed December 06, 2013).
Parthasarathy, S, Avery, C, Hedberg, N, Mannisto, J, Maguire, M. A public good? Geoengineering and intellectual property. STPP Working paper, 2010, 1–18.
Rayner, S. %22Climate change and geoengineering governance%22. NTS Insight, 2011.
Unruh, GC, Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J. Globalizing carbon lock‐in. Energy Policy 2006, 34:1185–1197.
Greenpeace. False Hope: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won`t Save the Climate. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Greenpeace International; 2008.
Shackley, S, Thompson, M. Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables? Clim Change 2011, 110:101–121.
Allenby, BR. Durban: Geoengineering as a Response to Cultural Lock‐In. 2012 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST) 2012, Pages 1–4.
Hansson, A, Bryngelsson, M. Expert opinions on carbon dioxide capture and storage—a framing of uncertainties and possibilities. Energy Policy 2009, 37:2273–2282.
Vergragt, PJ, Markusson, N, Karlsson, H. CCS, BECCS and escape from carbon lock‐in. Global Environ Chang 2009, 21:282–292.
Gough, C, Upham, P. Biomass energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS): a review. Tyndall Centre Working Paper 147, 2010.
Markusson, N, Haszeldine, S. ‘Capture readiness’–lock‐in problems for CCS governance. Energy Procedia 2009, 1:4625–4632.
Tomlinson, S. Breaking the Climate Deadlock: Technology for a Low Carbon Future. London: The Climate Group; 2009.
Leach, M, Fairhead, J, Fraser, J, Lehner, E. Biocharred pathways to sustainability? Triple wins, livelihoods and the politics of technological promise. STEPS Working Paper 41, Steps Centre, Brighton, 45 pages, 2010.
J‐P, V, Durand, R. The missing link between the theory and empirics of path dependence: conceptual clarification, testability issue, and methodological implications. J Manage Stud 2010, 47:736–759.
Cowan, R, Foray, D. Evolutionary economics and the counterfactual threat: on the nature and role of counterfactual history as an empirical tool in economics. J Evol Econ 2002, 12:539–562.
Vergne, J‐P. QWERTY is dead; long live path dependence. Res Policy 2013, 42:1191–1194.
Guy, PB. Path dependence of path dependence? Crit Policy Stud 2009, 3:68–69.
Liebowitz, S, Margolis, J. SEE. The Fable of the Keys. J Law Econ 1990, 30:1–26.
Arthur, WB. Comment on Neil Kay`s paper—‘rerun the tape of history and QWERTY always wins’. Res Policy 2013, 42:1186–1187.
Stirling, A. Science, precaution, and the politics of technological risk: converging implications in evolutionary and social scientific perspectives. Ann NY Acad Sci 2008, 1128:95–110.
Kemp, R, Schot, J, Hoogma, R. Regmine shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 1998, 10:175–195.
Melosi, M. Path dependence and urban history: is marriage possible? Resour City 2005, 10:262–275.
Robinson, DKR, Propp, T. Multi‐path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2008, 75:517–538.
Garud, R, Kumaraswamy, A, Karnøe, P. Path dependence or path creation? J Manage Stud 2010, 47:760–774.
Ebbinghaus, B. Can path dependence explain institutional change? Two approaches applied to welfare state reform Bernhard. Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, Discussion paper 05/02, 31 pages, 2005.
Liebert, W, Schmidt, JC. Collingridge`s dilemma and technoscience: an attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Poiesis Praxis 2010, 7:55–71.
Nordmann, A. A forensics of wishing: technology assessment in the age of technoscience. Poiesis Praxis 2010, 7:5–15.
Guston, DH, Sarewitz, D. Real‐time technology assessment. Technol Soc 2002, 24:93–109.
Collingridge, D. The management of scale: big organizations, big decisions, big mistakes. London: Routledge; 1992.
RCEP. Novel Materials in the Environment: The Case of Nanotechnology. London: RCEP; 2008.
Barry, C. The ethical assessment of technological change: an overview of the issues. J Hum Dev 2010, 2:167–189.
Brown, N. Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Sci Stud 2003, 16:3–21.
Macnaghten, P, Kearnes, MB, Wynne, B. Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social science? Sci Commun 2005, 27:268–291.
Rip, A, Misa, T, Schot, J, eds. Managing Technology in Society: The approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter; 1995.
Joss, S. Toward the public sphere ‐reflections on the development of participatory technology assessment. Bull Sci Technol Soc 2002, 22:220–231.
Grunwald, A. Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 2007, 39:380–392.
Lucivero, F, Swierstra, T, Boenink, M. Assessing expectations: towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. Nanoethics 2011, 5:129–141.
Fleming, J. The pathological history of weather and climate modification: three cycles of promise and hype. Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci 2006, 37:3–25.
Fleming, JR. Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control. New York and Chichester, West Sussex: Columbia University Press; 2010.
Edenhofer, O, Pichs‐madruga, R, Sokona, Y, Field, C, Barros, V, Stocker, TF, Dahe, Q, Minx, J, Mach, K, Plattner, G‐K, et al. Meeting report of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering held in Lima, Peru, June 20–22, 2011; 2012.
Long, J, Rademaker, S, Anderson, J, Benedick, RE, Caldeira, K, Chaisson, J, Goldston, D, Hamburg, S, Keith, D, Lehman, R, et al. Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potential effectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies. Report by the Bipartisan Policy Centre`s Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, Washington DC; 2011.
Sarewitz, D. The voice of science: let s agree to disagree. Nature 2011, 478:7.
Michaelson, J. %22Geoengineering and climate management: from marginality to inevitability%22. In: Burns, W, Strass, A, eds. Climate Change Geoengineering: philosophical perspectives, legal issues and governance frameworks. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013, 81–114.
Heyward, C. Situating and abandoning geoengineering: a typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. Pol Sci Polit 2013, 46:23–27.
Hale, B. %22Remediation vs. steering: an act description approach to approving and funding geoengineering research%22. In: Designer Biology: The ethics of intensively engineered biological and ecological systems. Plymouth: Lexington Books; 2013, 197–211.
Escobar, A. Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J Pol Ecol 1998, 5:53–82.
Bourdieu, P. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, UK: Polity; 1991.
Robinson, D. Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging Nanotechnologies: Experiments in Interactions. 2010.
Molyneux‐Hodgson, S, Meyer, M. Tales of emergence—synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. BioSocieties 2009, 4:129–145.
Wenger, E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
Carolan, M. Decentering Biotechnology: Assemblages Built and Assemblages Masked. FArnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd; 2010.
Nerlich, B, Jaspal, R. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symb 2012, 27:131–147.
Sikka, T. A critical discourse analysis of geoengineering advocacy. Crit Discourse Stud 2012, 9:163–175.
Luokkanen, M, Huttunen, S, Hildén, M. Geoengineering, news media and metaphors—framing the controversial. Public Underst Sci 2013, 36:2–29.
Porter, K, Hulme, M. The emergence of the geoengineering debate in the UK print media: a frame analysis. Geogr J 2013, 179:342–355.
Scholte, S, Vasileiadou, E, Petersen, AC. Opening up the societal debate on climate engineering: how newspaper frames are changing. J Integr Environ Sci 2013, 10:1–16.
Buck, HJ. What can geoengineering do for us ? Public participation and the new media landscape. Paper prepared for a workshop: The Ethics of Solar Radiation Management, University of Montana, 18 October, 2010.
Corner, A, Parkhill, K, Pidgeon, N. Experiment Earth?` Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering. Cardiff University School of Psychology, Understanding Risk Group Working Paper, 2012.
Pidgeon, N, Corner, A, Parkhill, K, Spence, A, Butler, C. Exploring early public responses to geoengineering. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 2012, 370:4176–4196.
Poumadère, M, Bertoldo, R, Samadi, J. Public perceptions and governance of controversial technologies to tackle climate change: nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, wind, and geoengineering. WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:712–727. doi: 10.1002/wcc.134.
Macnaghten, P, Szerszynski, B. Living the global social experiment: an analysis of public discourse on solar radiation management and its implications for governance. Glob Environ Change 2013, 23:465–474.
Watson, J, Kern, F, Markusson, N. Resolving or managing uncertainties for carbon capture and storage: lessons from historical analogues. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2013, 81:192–204.
Matthews, HD, Turner, SE. Of mongooses and mitigation: ecological analogues to geoengineering. Environ Res Lett 2009, 4:045105.
Morton, O. Nitrogen Geoengineering. Opinion Article, Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series, 2013. Available at: http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/07/09/nitrogen‐geoengineering‐opinion‐article/.
Brovkin, V, Petoukhov, V, Claussen, M, Bauer, E, Archer, D, Jaeger, C. Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Clim Change 2009, 92:243–259.