Abstract
Solar radiation modification (SRM) has become a focus of climate research and governance debate. While much of the governance literature addresses scientific assessment, responsible research, participation, and multilateral oversight, less attention has been paid to how civil society actors shape what counts as legitimate governance. This article examines how the ETC Group and allied actors construct opposition to SRM. Drawing on Cultural Theory of Risk, sociotechnical imaginaries, and interpretive discourse analysis of public materials from 2008 to 2025, it reconstructs a predominantly egalitarian repertoire organized around the vulnerability of nature and affected communities, distrust of concentrated expertise and corporate power, and claims concerning consent, sovereignty, and environmental justice.
Hierarchical, individualist, and fatalist registers are incorporated into this repertoire in distinct ways: authority is affirmed when it supports limits, private initiative marks the adversary, and lock-in supplies the warning scenario. Three practices give this politics of refusal coherence: translating soft law into non-use, contesting field experiments as steps toward normalization, and constructing counter-expertise. The analysis shows that this position has political force because it exposes risks of normalization and concentrated authority. It also has crucial governance limits, narrowing the space in which research, assessment, participation, and Southern agency can be distinguished and debated.
