"As the national security ramifications of climate change grow more pronounced, climate manipulation technologies, known as geoengineering, will become more attractive as a method of staving off climate-related security emergencies.  However, geoengineering technologies could disrupt the global ecological status quo, and could pose a potentially coercive (and very serious) threat to peace."

LINK

Attfield, Robin (2018): The Ethics of Geo-engineering. In : Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy: Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 23–27.

"Some favor this measure as a quick and inexpensive replacement for mitigation; but its possible side-effects and lack of an exit-strategy mean that its deployment would be misguided, and that researching it might undermine determination to reach a mitigation agreement. Some forms of Carbon Dioxide Removal (seeding the oceans with iron filings to grow carbon-reducing algae) face similar objections, but others, like afforestation and Carbon Capture and Storage (itself not yet operative), comprise acceptable enhancements of current technology. Even if they do not buy time, these measures could beneficially supplement a global Climate Change agreement."

LINK

Thiele, Leslie Paul (2018): Geoengineering and sustainability. In Environmental Politics 2 (1), pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1449602.

"Geoengineering is regarded by advocates as a creative and responsible technological option in the face of a climate emergency. Critics often see it as a hubristic attempt to play God, with disastrous consequences for the planet and humanity. These antipodal perspectives are represented by the ideal types of Prometheans and Gaians. Prometheans and Gaians typically talk past each other. The geoengineering debate can be made more fruitful by well articulating their respective positions and subsequently situating them in the discourse of sustainability."

LINK

Faran, Turaj S.; Olsson, Lennart (2018): Geoengineering. Neither economical, nor ethical—a risk–reward nexus analysis of carbon dioxide removal. In Int Environ Agreements 27 (12), p. 555. DOI: 10.1007/s10784-017-9383-8.

"Using the recently developed approach of risk–reward nexus (RRN) in the economics of innovation, we question the economic viability of CDR. The main argument is simple: if one uses the new framework of RRN in evaluating the innovations involved in the CDR branch of geoengineering, not only does one include more areas of risk but also one has to consider a broader base for distributing the rewards. Consequently, from RRN’s point of view, it would be less likely to find investing in CDR economically viable for the investor firms."

LINK