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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science and Engineering Ethics
Published
2025-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00569-6
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Brian Patrick Green, Julian Dreiman
Science and Engineering Ethics
Climate Change and Geoengineering
article

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

Brian Patrick Green, Julian Dreiman
article en

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.

Science and Engineering EthicsVol. 32(1)
Santa Clara University (US), Film Independent (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Rethinking Geoengineering Governance Utilizing the Playing God Argument: Considerations of Knowledge, Control, and Benevolence — Brian Patrick Green, Julian Dreiman · Science and Engineering Ethics (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS