Page1of27

Geoengineeringatthe‘EdgeoftheWorld’:ExploringPerceptionsofOceanFertilizationthroughtheHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporation.

KateElizabethGannon1*andMikeHulme2

1GranthamResearch InstituteonClimateChangeand theEnvironment, LondonSchoolof Economics,HoughtonStreet,London,WC2A2AE,UK.k.e.gannon@lse.ac.uk+44(0)2071075027[Correspondingauthor]ORCIDID:0000-0001-6742-8982

2DepartmentofGeography,UniversityofCambridge,DowningPl,Cambridge,CB23EN,UK.mh903@cam.ac.uk.ORCIDID:0000-0002-1273-7662

Keywords: Geoengineering, Ocean Fertilization, Ideologies of Nature, Public Engagement, Ethnography, Q-Methodology

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a 1+3 postgraduate studentship awarded in the Economic and Social Research Council’s open competition, ESRC funding through the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment. Fieldwork was further supported through the Frederick Soddy Postgraduate Award, administered by the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers). The authors offer their sincere thanks to all the people in Haida Gwaii who put so much time, effort – and often friendship – into guiding and supporting this research; to being interviewed; to conducing our Q-sort exercise; and to sharing intimate glimpses into their hard-won knowledge and experience. Thank you to the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation affiliates and directors who supported this research and acted as key gate keepers. The authors are additionally grateful to George Adamson (King’s College London), Naomi Vaughan (University of East Anglia), Peter Simmons (University of East Anglia), Phil Macnaghten (Wageningen University and Research Centre), Sam Randalls (University College London), Declan Conway (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics) and Annick de-Witt for their constructive input to, and comments on, earlier versions of this work.

Page2of27

Geoengineeringatthe‘EdgeoftheWorld’:ExploringPerceptionsofOceanFertilizationthroughtheHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporation.

AbstractThispaperdescribesanopportunisticcasestudyof the2012HaidaSalmonRestorationCorporation’soceanfertilizationproject.Anchoredinnotionsofplaceandidentity,theHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporationmarksanovelentrypoint intosocialresearchongeoengineering,whichenablesamoresituatedengagementwithoceanfertilization,inkeepingwithgeographicaltraditions.ThepaperadoptsaninnovativedesignthatcombinesethnographywithQ-Methodology,toidentifyclustersofsharedmeaningaroundthewayinwhichcontestationsurrounding the geoengineering ambitions of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation invoked differentinterpretations about the role and nature of ‘nature’ and human agency. This case study suggests that‘geoengineering’will alwaysbeperformedand interpreted throughcontextually specificmeaningsandsuchlocalparticularitiesasgeography,people,practicesandplace.Nevertheless,interpretativeresourcesthathavebeendescribedinrelationtoarangeofgeoengineeringtechnologies,(includingsolarradiationmanagementproposals),throughearlier,andlesssituated,socialscienceliteratures,arealsotracedfromthisplace-basedexperience of geoengineering. Furthermore, we suggest that our Q-Methodology factors have someinterpretativeoverlapwithideal-typical‘worldview’heuristics,usedtodescribecontemporaryWesternculturalcurrents in earlier literatures. This connects ocean fertilization in Haida Gwaii with debates about othergeoengineering technologies and with wider cultural meanings and literatures that consider the humanrelationship with nature. We suggest that the Q-factors may serve as useful mnemonics for helping toconceptualise some of the deeper contested values and assumptions that drive public contestation aboutgeoengineering.IntroductionNewturnsinthegeoengineeringdebateThedesireforhumancontroloverclimateandweatherhasalonghistory,emergingandre-emergingindifferentplaces,indifferentcultures,atdifferenttimesandwithdifferentgoals(Fleming,2010).PaulCrutzen’s(2006)seminal essay in the journal Climatic Change, ‘Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulphur Injections: AContributiontoResolveaPolicyDilemma?’,iswidelycreditedwithgivingrenewedcredibilitytoambitionsforglobal control overglobal climate (Hulme, 2014) and to contributing to a new academic, policy and publicdiscourse on geoengineering (Buck, 2012; Nerlich and Jaspal, 2012; Porter andHulme, 2013; Hulme, 2014;BoettcherandSchäfer,2017).A stagnantglobal response tomitigatinggreenhousegasemissions, coupledwithemergenceof theclimatetipping pointmetaphor (Russill and Nyssa, 2009) and concerns that significant climate change has become‘locked-in’,haveaddedurgencytoCrutzen’snarrative.Andnow,adecadelater(BoettcherandSchäfer,2017),geoengineeringhastransitionedfromfringetomoremainstreampolicydiscussions,positionedasathirdpolicyresponsealongsidemitigationandadaptation(Stilgoe,2013;IPCC,2014).Inaworldwhereshifts towards far-rightpopulism inWesterngovernance regimesmake the likelihoodofameaningfulglobalresponsetoclimatechangemitigationappearevenmorechallenging(Milmanetal.,2017),geoengineeringresearchistodaytakingnewstrides.ScientistsatHarvardUniversityareabouttobeginsprayingaerosolparticlesintotheEarth’sstratosphereintheworld’sfirstopen-airfieldtrialstotesttheviabilityofsolargeoengineering (Ramachandran, 2017). And a new non-profit group, the Oceaneos Marine ResearchFoundation,hasemergedinVancouver,aroundaproposaltofertiliseChileanwatersinthePacificOceanwithiron,ineffortstostimulatethegrowthofphytoplankton(Tollefson,2017).Asinterestingeoengineeringgathers,debateisspreadingwideranddeeper,drawingtogetheranever-greaterrange of stakeholders, political actors and interests, with multiple, and often competing, perceptions andunderstandingsofwhygeoengineeringmay,ormaynot,bedesirableandfeasible(Hulme,2014).

Page3of27

Geoengineering:Openingupadebateaboutthehumanrelationshipwith‘nature’A small, but emerging, body of empirical (Nerlich and Jaspal, 2012; Corner et al., 2013; Macnaghten andSzerszynski,2013;PorterandHulme,2013)andtheoretical (GalarragaandSzerszynski,2012;Preston,2012;Clingerman,2014;Hulme,2014),socialscienceliterature,hasarguedthatdebatesaboutgeoengineeringareinasensedebatesabouthumanidentity,aboutthenatureofreality,abouttheknowledgeweacquireandaboutthefutureswedesire.‘Nature’,Olwig(1996:87)arguesis‘aghostthatisrarelyvisibleunderitsownname’andnarratives of geoengineering have been found to embody diverse beliefs about nature and human agency.Humanself-interpretationliesattheheartofthewaysinwhichpeopleconceiveofandrelatetotheconceptof‘nature’(Soper,1995;Castree,2005).Thusthegeoengineeringdebateinvokesnotonlydifferentconceptionsof nature, but also discordant interpretations of human identity and placewithin theworld (Galarraga andSzerszynski, 2012; Clingerman, 2014). Culturally and cognitively fabricated, specific and variable, differentunderstandingsofnature,andthehumanplacewithinit,havebeenparticularlyconvincingatdifferenttimesandindifferentcontexts(Simmons,1993;Cronin,1995;Castree,2005).Prevailingconstructionsofnature,havesimilarlytemperednarrativesofweatherandclimate(Boia,2005;Donner,2007,2011)Geoengineering is only one of the latest in a long line of technological developments – including geneticmodification,nanotechnology,nuclearpowerandcarboncaptureandstorage–thathasprovokeddebateaboutthedesirabilityandfeasibilityofhumansattemptingtocontrol,shapeormanagenaturalsystems(MacnaghtenandUrry,1998;Corneretal.,2013;Hastrup,2013).Throughitsdualidentityasatechnologicalendeavourofboth‘global’and‘intentional’(Clingerman,2014;GalarragaandSzerszynski,2012)remit,geoengineeringhas,nevertheless, been argued to have unprecedented potential to recalibrate the parameters through whichnotionsofnatureandhumanagencyareconstructed, towiden themeaningofwhat it is to livewithin the‘Anthropocene’andthustodrawhumanityintoanewrelationshipwithnature(GalarragaandSzerszynski,2012;Preston,2012;Hamilton,2013;MacnaghtenandSzerszynski,2013).Ifthen,asClingerman(2014:7)claims,geoengineering“challengesustorethinkoursenseofbeinghuman”,itis surely prudent to self-consciously and collectively define the terms of this new relationship. Yet, a smallnumberofactorsaredisproportionatelybeinggivenauthoritytoframedebatesongeoengineering(Kintisch,2010; Hamilton, 2011b; Buck, 2013; Porter and Hulme, 2013) and to date social science literatures ongeoengineeringhave largely brought forth a limited rangeof voices. Existingdebateon geoengineeringhasthereforebeengendered,aswellasethnically,culturallyandgeographicallybiased(Whyte,2012;Bellamyetal.,2013;BelterandSeidel,2013).Asituatedengagementwithperceptionsof‘geoengineering’throughthecaseoftheHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporationSocial science literaturehas typically exploredperceptionsof geoengineering in controlled, surveyor focus-group-typesettings.Deliberativemethods,usuallyexecutedinfocusgroupswithnotablesophisticationintheirdesign,havebecomethegoldstandardof researchonpublicperceptionsofgeoengineering (Bellamyetal.,2016; Bellamy et al., 2017;Macnaghten and Szerszynski, 2013). However, participants in these deliberativeprocesses typically don’t have much advance understanding of geoengineering, which means that theseresearchdesignsstill,insomesenses,havetocreatetheviewsthattheyseektoelicit(Buck,2010;Stirling,2008).Inamoveawayfromresearchonpublicperceptionsofgeoengineeringthathaspreviouslybeendependentonmoreabstractrationality,thispaperfocusesona‘realworld’caseofgeoengineering,diverselyexperiencedandinterpretedbyavariedrangeof‘public’and‘expert’actorsandcommentators.TheHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporation (HSRC)wasanocean fertilization (OF)project thatpreceded theOceaneos Marine Research Foundation, with notable continuity among some members of the projectmanagement teams. Originally led by US entrepreneur Russ George, known for his controversial history incarboncreditventures(CBC,2013),inthesummerof2012,theHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporation(HSRC)tipped120tonnesofironsulphateandironoxideintoanoceaneddyininternationalwaters,offthewestcoastof Haida Gwaii. Branded the world’s ‘largest geoengineering experiment’ by media outlets (Lukacs, 2012;McKnight,2013),theHSRCwasfundedbytheFirstNationsHaidavillageofOldMassett,onthepromisethattheprojectwouldrevivedepleted localsalmonruns,whileprovidingameaningfulresponsetothethreatofanthropogenicclimatechangeandgeneratingmillionsofdollarsforthevillagefromthesaleofcarboncredits

Page4of27

(White,2013).TheHSRCcasestudyinvokedararesiteoflive,andoftenverysophisticated,debateaboutthedesirabilityandfeasibilityofOFasa formofgeoengineeringandembroiledadiverse setofactors,whomadesenseof thegeoengineeringambitionsoftheHSRCthroughadiverserangeofcultural,politicalandeducationalexperiences.Through the Haida Nation, these actors include Indigenous people, who have been largely excluded frompreviouspublicconsultationongeoengineering.TheHSRCcasestudythereforeofferstheopportunityto‘openup’(c.f.Stirling,2008)theexistingsocialscienceliteraturetoawiderrangeofempiricalperspectives.TheHSRCbecomesa‘controversy’AsisoutlinedinmoredetailinGannon(2015),theHSRCwasdeeplydivisiveinHaidaGwaii(andelsewhere)andprovoked strong, emotional reactions in resistance to, aswell as in support of, the project. “It has dividedfamilies”, anOldMassett resident explained (Gannon, 2015: 133). Critics on, andoff, island challenged thescientificvalidityoftheprojectandthepotentialforittoobtainmeaningfuldataabouttheimpactsofOFontheoceanecosystemand tomeasure carbon sequestration (Hume,2012; Suzuki, 2012; Pearson, 2013). Lackoftransparencysurroundingtheproject’sdesign,implementationanddatacollectionprocessesfuelledmanyoftheseconcerns.AsdidthelackoftraditionalscientificcredentialswithintheHSRC,aswellasthebeliefamongmany,thattheprojectboresignificant,unreasonableandpoorlyunderstoodriskstothemarineenvironment:ApositionthatbroadlyreflectsstatementsexpressingdisapprovalofOFfromboththeLondonConventiononOceanDumpingandtheConventiononBiologicalDiversity.Thelegalityoftheprojectwasalsoasourceofsignificantcontroversy,particularlyinlightofthecommercialintentof theprojectdesign,which constitutesa legal greyarea. Further,withnomarketormechanism forverifyingcarboncreditsfromOFcurrentlyinexistence,itremainsunlikelythattheCAD$2.5milliondollarsthatOldMassettVillageCouncil(OMVC)originallyinvestedinfinancingtheHSRC–letalonethe‘guaranteed’profitsfrom the project – will ever be returned to the village. For a community that experiences around 70%unemployment following resource depletion and structural exclusion from the remaining resource-basedindustry(Gill,2009),asonecommunitymemberexplained,“thatwasalotofmoney”(Gannon,2015:172).LocaltensionswerealsofuelledbyafeelingoflackofownershipovertheprojectbysomemembersoftheOldMassettcommunity.ManybelievedthattheHaidanameandtheproudandpoliticallypowerful(Dowie,2017;May,1990)Haidaidentityofenvironmentalstewardshipandculturalconnectiontothelandandocean–whichwasintegraltotheHSRC’spublicbranding–wasmisappropriatedandconstitutedaformof‘greenwashing’.Theproject’sframingas‘salmonrestoration’exacerbatedthisfeelingamongmany.Thesignificanceofsalmonasthe “life blood” (Masset resident in Gannon, 2015: 142) of Haida people is age-old and the spiritual andnutritionalvalueoflocalsalmonrunshasbeenextensivelyexpressedthroughHaidaart.InHaidaGwaii,salmonstocks, and sockeye salmon in particular, are considered to be in “dire straits compared to their historicalabundance”(CHN,2004:14,seealsoCohen,2012).FormanyHaidapeople,protectingandsecuringaccesstosalmon is fundamental to reclamation of the Haida cultural identity and autonomy, after deliberate andsystematiccolonialviolationoftheHaidawayoflife.ThebusinessdevelopmentrationaleoftheHSRClinkedOFtosalmonrestorationthroughaconjecturediscussedinanopinionpiecewrittenbyParsons&Whitney(2012).ThispaperhypothesisedthatplanktonbloomsinthesubarcticNorthPacific–linkedtofertilizationbyvolcanicashplumesarisingfromthe2008KasatochivolcanoinsouthwesternAlaska(Hammeetal.,2010;Langmannetal.,2010)–contributedtoa34millionstrong2010sockeyesalmonrunintheFraserRiver,throughincreasedfoodavailabilityensuringgreatersurvivalofjuvenilesalmon.ThereislimitedempiricalevidencethatOFcouldbeadvantageousforoceanfoodwebs(RoyalSociety,2009)andthishypothesiswashighlycontested(McKinnell,2013).ButwhentoldbytheHSRCthattheproblemneededtobefixed‘outatsea’,OldMassettwassurelyreadytolisten.MovingforwardthroughaninterpretativelensReflectingwhatClingerman(2014:10)labelstheimplicit“theoryofanthropology”ofgeoengineeringdiscourse–aninherentinterpretationofthenatureofthehumanroleandpurpose–thispaperisgoingtoarguethat,at

Page5of27

theheartofdebateaboutthedesirabilityandfeasibilityoftheHSRCsOFproject,liediverseimplicitphilosophicalassumptionsaboutthenatureof‘nature’,oftechnologyandoftheappropriaterelationshipbetween‘human’and ‘non-human’ worlds. This paper therefore explores the way in which discourse surrounding the HSRCconstructs different ideas about what it means to be human, about the way in which humans can attainknowledgeofnatural systemsandabout the ‘natural’or ‘artificial’qualityof technologicalmediationof theenvironment.Human geography tells us that placematters as a centre ofmeaning in human life (e.g. Livingstone, 2003;Cresswell,2004)andthusmeaningsofgeoengineeringwillbeanchoredin,andshapedby,spatialforces,varyingfromplacetoplaceandunderstooddifferentlyindifferentlocations.TheHSRC,anchoredinnotionsofplaceandidentity,thereforemarksanovelentrypointintothinkingaboutsocialresearchongeoengineering,thatofferstheopportunitytopursueamoresituatedengagementwithgeoengineering,inkeepingwithgeographicaltraditions(Yusoff,2013,seealsoJasanoff,2010).Humangeographyhas,nevertheless,activelyadvancedthetheoreticalandmethodologicaldynamismnecessaryformeaningful explorationof themultiple, andoften competing, social constructionsof nature andhumanagencythatlieattheheartofgeoengineeringdiscourse.Reflectingthistradition,thispaperadoptsaninnovativedesignthatcombinesethnographicengagementwiththeHSRCcasestudy,withQ-Methodology;adiscourseanalysistechniquethatenablesinterpretationofclustersofsharedmeaningwithindebates.ThepaperemploysQ-Methodologytoexploretheways inwhichdiverseassumptionsabouttheroleandnatureof ‘nature’andhumanagencycanbeinterpretedfromdiscourseontheHSRCandtountanglediverseviewpointsinrelationtoOF.MethodsQ-MethodologyQ-Methodologyisa‘qualiquantological’(StennerandStaintonRogers,2004)researchmethodthatstructurestheinterpretationandcomparisonofkeysharedandcontested‘pointsofview’thatsurroundagivenissueortopic(CooganandHerrington,2011).Thetechniquehasrootsincorrelationstatisticsandaninvertedvariantoffactoranalysis(Stephenson,1936;WattsandStenner,2012).Q-Methodologyisusedacrossthesocialsciencesandhasbeenemployedinthegeoengineeringliteraturetoidentifya‘framinggulf’amonginfluential,or‘expert’geoengineeringactorsfromdiversedisciplinarybackgroundsandsectors(CairnsandStirling,2014).In Q-Methodology, data is gathered in the form of Q-sorts:Participantssortadiversesetofstatementsaboutaspecifiedtopicontoafixedandapproximatelynormallydistributed,singledimensionandface-validgrid(figure1). They sort these statements according towhat theydeemtobemeaningfulandsignificant.Thedataisthenconsidered in terms of the entire configuration ofresponses produced by participants, in a by-personfactoranalysis.Q-Methodology aims to reveal patterns of associationbetweenthemeasuredvariables,andtogenerateasmallnumberoffactorsthatareusedtohelpinterpretsharedmeaningswithinthedata(Stephenson,1965;WattsandStenner,2012;Webler,eral.,2007,2009).Yetdespiteitsquantitative features, Q-Methodology can be perfectlyathomeinthe interpretivistsocialsciences;seekingtoengage with the multiple and messy, socially andculturallysituated,subjectiveworldsinwhichpeopledevelopmeaningsoftheirexperiencestowardsanobjectofstudy(Edenetal.,2005;Webleretal.,2009).Itsexecutionisahighlyinterpretativeprocess.Howtheconcourseisframed,whichstatementsareusedinthe

Figure1:TheQ-sortmatrixusedinthestudyQ-sortgridsaretypicallynumberedfromanegativevalueatonepolethroughtoanequivalentpositivenumberattheotherpole(inan11-pointdistributiontheserunfrom-5to+5). However, to avoid forcing participants to allocate apositive ranking to an item they disagree with and viceversa, and in order to stress the relative, rather thanabsolutenatureofrankings,inthegridusedinthisstudy,thesewerereplacedbyapositivecontinuousscale.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11MostlikehowIthink LeastlikehowIthink

Page6of27

Q-sort,whichparticipantsarechosentoconductthesorts,andthewayinwhichtheanalysisisconducted,allshapetheresearch(Webleretal.,2007).Participantsaretypicallyselectedalongmorepurposive,qualitativerationales.Theoreticalselectioncriteria“withdueregardforanyobviouscontoursinthedata”(Brown,1993:116)cantakeprecedenceoverstatisticalrationaleswhenresearchersdecidewhichfactorstoretainandwhichtorotate(Edenetal.,2005).Moreover,factorsarejuststatisticalabstractionsuntilconferreddiscursivemeaningthroughinterpretation(ibid.).Statisticalprocessingisthereforemerelyusedtofacilitateandbolsterqualitativeinterpretation.AQ-studybasedonthecaseoftheHSRCThe Q-study in this research was designed to engage with situated interpretations of the desirability andfeasibilityofOF,thatsurroundedtheHSRCOFexperiment.Participants–largelycomprisedofasampleofon-islandresidents,butalsoincludingoff-islandHSRCassociates–wereaskedtosortstatementsaccordingtotheirunderstandingofOFasaresponsetoanthropogenicclimatechange.Toacknowledgethelocalandcontingentnatureofimaginaries(JasanoffandKim,2009),thesortinginstruction(box1)wasdesignedtoaskparticipantstodrawontheirinterpretationoftheHSRCprojectandtousetheQ-sorttoconsiderandrepresentwhatthefutureofOFmeanstotheminmoregeneralterms.

BuildingtheQ-MethodologyconcoursethroughethnographicenquiryAQ-setisusuallytext-based,and,sincetheQ-setservesthefunctionofthestudysample,Q-statementsareconstructedby the researcher to representa spectrumofdiscourse “broadly representativeof the relevantopiniondomain” (WattsandStenner,2005:75).TheQ-set shouldbe informedbyasmanystandpointsandthemes as possible, and allow anyone presented with the sorting instructions to construct a personallymeaningfulrepresentationoftheirunderstandingoftheissue(CooganandHerrington,2011).Q-setsareoftendevelopedfrombackgroundinterviewsorfromdiscourseanalysisofmaterialssuchaspublications,websitesandnewspaperarticles.Inthisresearch,theQ-setemergedfromaninterpretativeethnographicengagementwiththeHSRC,duringeightmonthsthatoneoftheauthorsspentinBritishColumbiaduring2013and20141.Localmeanings,practicesandidentitiesdonotexistinisolation,butratheraremultiplyproducedandintricatelyinterwovenintothebroaderfabricofthesocialworld(Beck,2007;Tsing,2004).Asaresult,commencingfromthegeographicalbaseontheislandsofHaidaGwaii,thefieldsitewasconstructedthroughMarcus'(1995:109-110)trackingstrategiesof“followtheplot,storyorallegory”and“followtheconflict”,allowingtheresearchtotraversediscourses,people,placesandpracticessurroundingtheHSRCprojectatvarioussocioculturalscales.Reflective of Anna Tsing's (2004: xi) “zones of awkward engagement”, these tracking strategies wereimplemented through thesocialexperienceofparticipantobservationwithin the researchsetting.And theyweresupportedbyin-depthinterviewsofvaryingformalitywith44participants,aswellasafocusgroup(n=13),whereparticipantsweresampledthroughacombinationofconvenience, snowballand theoretical samplingmethods.Mediaframeanalysisandanalysisofothertexts,recordsofpublicmeetings,audioandvisualmaterialandlocalmediacoveragealsoofferedasenseofhowthe‘conflict,plot,storyorallegory’hadchangedovertime.Comprisingmultiplepossibleanswerstothesortinginstructionstatement,thefinalQ-set–47statementslistedinfullintable2below-wasaproductofthisinterpretativeengagementwiththeHSRCcasestudy.Asfaras

1ThistimewaslargelyspentontheislandsofHaidaGwaii.However,timewasalsospentinVancouverwheretheHSRCofficewasbased.

“Alongsidethegoalofsalmonrestoration,theHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporationhopestosequestercarbondioxide,throughoceanfertilization,inordertoreducethescaleofhuman-inducedclimatechange.Howdoyoufeelaboutexploringoceanfertilizationtotrytosequestercarbondioxideintheocean?Pleasesorttheprovidedstatementsintheorderthatbestdescribesyourpointofview”.

Box1:TheSortingStatement

Page7of27

possibleQ-statementswerekeptshort,expressedasingleidea,avoidedqualificationsandwerecommunicatedinlanguagefamiliarto,and,wherepossible,usedby,participants(Webleretal.,2009).The‘qualitativedetail’of the research was filled out through the ethnographic engagement with the subject and through askingparticipantscompletingthesortto‘thinkoutloud’astheyconductedthesortingprocess.Thus,havingadiversegroupofparticipantsconductthesortandreallylisteningtowhattheyweresayingwasmoreimportantthantryingtocoverabsolutelyeveryconceivableperspectiveintheQ-set(c.f.Donner,2001).TheQ-sortwas refined followingpiloting (n=5)and the statementswere randomlyordered.Thenumberofstatementsusedintheresearchwasselectedtobalancestatisticalcriteria,withtheabilityforparticipantstoconstructapersonallymeaningfulrepresentationoftheirpointofview,withinareasonabletimeframe(Wattsand Stenner, 2012; Webler et al., 2007). 26 participants completed the Q-sort exercise. From the factorsgenerated through the analysis, ‘ideal-typical’ sorts were constructed, representing an estimate of the Q-statementconfiguration‘characteristic’ofparticipantsthatloadsignificantlyontoeachfactor.Triangulatedandenrichedbythequalitativedatacollectedalongsidethesortingexercise,theseestimatedarrayswerethenusedto construct narrative interpretations of the ‘viewpoints’,which form theprimary output of theQ-analysis.FurtherdetailsofthestatisticalandmethodologicalprocessesthroughwhichtheQ-sortswereconductedandanalysedareprovidedintheappendixofthispaper.ResultsTwofactorsbecomethreeFromtheQ-sortscollected in this researchwesettledona two-factorsolution,explaining50%of thestudyvariance;aresultthatcompareswellwiththevarianceexplainedbyotherQ-studies.Atthe99%confidencelevel,19outofthe26participantsloadsignificantlyontoonlyonefactor.Factor1hasaneigenvalue2of7.8andexplains30%ofthetotalstudyvariance.Factor2hasaneigenvalueof5.2andexplains20%ofthetotalstudyvariance.Factor1 isbipolar,definedby12 sorts loading significantly,bothpositivelyandnegatively,onto this factor.Conceptually,thisrepresentstwoopposed‘viewpoints’beingexpressedinonefactor.Inordertointerpretthe‘viewpoint’expressedbythesortsthat loadonthenegativepole,bipolarfactorsmustbeinterpretedtwice.UsingQ-MethodologysoftwarePQMethod,Factor1wasretainedtwiceandthefactorloadingswerereversedtoformFactor1b.Onlythesortsthatwerepositivelycorrelatedwitheachfactorwereusedintheconstructionoffactorestimates(Brown,1980).Thisprocessresultedinthetwo-factorsolution,becomingeffectivelyathree-factorsolution,whereFactor1aandFactor1barehighlynegativelycorrelated(-0.72).Table1 identifiesthesorts that were used to construct each factor and to generate the factor estimates. The factor arrays aredisplayedinTable2below:Bycolumn,thetablerevealsthecomparativerankingofstatementswhichexemplifyagivenfactor.

2Eigenvaluesareameasureoftheexplanatorypowerofanextractedfactor.Theyarecalculatedbymultiplyingthenumberofparticipantsbythevarianceanddividingthisresultby100.

Page8of27

ParticipantNumber

1a 1b 2

P1 -0.5796 0.5796 0.1723P2 0.6476 -0.6476 0.4457P3 0.432 -0.432 0.5174P4 0.573 -0.573 0.379P5 -0.5068 0.5068 0.3972P6 0.3015 -0.3015 0.2374P7 0.4611 -0.4611 0.3017P8 0.5656 -0.5656 0.3311P9 0.0273 -0.0273 0.4674P10 -0.735 0.735 -0.1126P11 0.7617 -0.7617 0.2992P12 0.4751 -0.4751 0.4895P13 0.5036 -0.5036 0.6683P14 -0.7543 0.7543 -0.2029P15 0.3881 -0.3881 0.4187P16 0.4159 -0.4159 0.6401P17 0.5888 -0.5888 0.5725P18 0.1165 -0.1165 0.7256P19 0.7355 -0.7355 0.3311P20 -0.0992 0.0992 0.5698P21 -0.7434 0.7434 0.0485P22 -0.3136 0.3136 0.5494P23 0.0819 -0.0819 0.6486P24 -0.7691 0.7691 0.037P25 0.5438 -0.5438 0.6858P26 -0.8656 0.8656 -0.0412 %expl.var. 30 20

Table1:FactorMatrixIndicatingDefiningSorts

Factorloadings,whichrepresentaparticipant’saffinitytoafactoranddenotetheextent to which their sort exemplifies that factor, are shown above. In thisresearch,sortswitharotatedfactorloadinginexcessof0.51(significantatthep<0.01level)wereconsideredtocloselyapproximatetheviewpointofafactorandwere used to construct factor estimates. Confounded sorts, which loadedsignificantlyonmore thanone factor,werenotused in theconstructionof thefactorestimates(c.f.WattsandStenner,2012).

Page9of27

StatementFactor

1a 1b 2

1.Peoplewhosupportoceanfertilizationhaven'ttakentimetolistentotheearthandtofeelitspower.

1** -4 -2

2.Usingoceanfertilizationtoforcechangeinouroceanswillchangeusandwewillloseourconnectiontotheearth.

1* -1 -1

3.Naturalsystemsaresointerconnectedandcomplexthateverytimehumanstrytoaffecttheminoneway,somethingelseisaffectedtoo.

3 2 5**

4.Onlysciencecantelluswhetheroceanfertilizationisagoodideaornot. -2** 4** 1**

5.FiddlingaroundwithourenvironmentthroughoceanfertilizationgoesagainsteverythingthatIholdastrueanddear.

4** -5** 0**

6. Iron in theocean isanatural thingandocean fertilizationmimics thenaturalrhythmsofnature.

-4 2** -3

7.Carboncredits fromocean fertilizationcouldbringmuchneeded income intocommunitiesthatinvestalotoftimeandenergyintocaringfortheenvironment.

-4** 1** 0**

8.My feelingsonocean fertilizationare informedbyanunderstanding that thenaturalworldneedsustostepbackandleaveitalone.

1 -2** 1

9.Oceanfertilizationshouldnotbedonebyprivatecompanies. 0** -3** 3**

10.Wehavenowayofreallyknowingwhattheimpactofoceanfertilizationwillbe.

2** -1 0

11.Oceanfertilizationwillbeanexcuseforgreaterglobalgovernance. 0 0 -3**

12.Oceanfertilizationcouldeasilybecomeaninstrumentconducivewitheffortstooppresslesspowerfulgroupsinsociety.

-1 -1 -4

13.Ifwetrytomanipulatenatureinthisarrogantway,theuniversewillfightbackandhumanswilleventuallypaytheprice.

5** -4** 1**

14.Wehavealreadychangedtheclimatesystembyemittinggreenhousegases.Tryingtochangeitagainwithoceanfertilizationisnodifferent.Atleastthistimewearedoingitwithoureyesopen.

-2 3** -2

15.Myfeelingsonoceanfertilizationarebornfromafeelingofconnectiontotheearthandtootherformsoflife.

1 0 2

16. I have huge faith in human ingenuity, but the scale that ocean fertilizationwouldoperateatisjusttoobig.

-1 -2** 0

17.Myfeelingsonoceanfertilizationareshapedbyanunderstandingthatifwearetosavetheworldfromdangerousclimatechange,weneedtothinkbiganddosoquickly.

-2 2** -1

18.OceanfertilizationishumanstryingtoplayGod. 5** -4** -1**

19.Ifyouthinkyoumayhaveasolutiontoclimatechange,thenyouaremorallyobligatedtopursueit.Oceanfertilizationisagoodexampleofthis.

-2 3** -5

20.Weneedtolookformorecivilizedandprecisesolutionstoclimatechangethanoceanfertilization.

3 -1** 4

Page10of27

21.Oceanfertilizationisunlikelytobeusedforthebettermentofall. 0* -3** 2*

22.Ocean fertilization isapractical response thatmayhelpusprotectwhatwehaveleft.

-3** 3** -1**

23.Oceanfertilizationismorallywrong. 4** -5** -2**

24.Theearthcannotcopewiththeburdenofdemandscurrentlyplacedonit.Notechnologicalfix,oceanfertilizationincluded,willgetusaroundthatfact.

-1 -2 3**

25. If ocean fertilization appears to be having any negative impacts on theenvironmentwecanjuststopdoingit.

-1** 5** -4**

26.Oceanfertilizationisnotdissimilarfromtheprincipleoffertilizingourcrops,tomeetthedemandsofarapidlygrowingglobalpopulation.

-1 2** -3

27.Ihopethateveryoneisgiventheopportunitytounderstandthesciencebehindoceanfertilization,ratherthanitbeinginasmallnumberofhands.

0* 2 3

28. Rather than fertilizing the oceans, humans need to learn to live within theEarth’slimits.

2** 0** 5**

29.Theneedforoceanfertilizationhasbeenoverexaggerated. -1 -3** -1

30.Oceanfertilizationcouldhavedisastrousconsequencesforhumanity. 4* -3** 2*

31. Ocean fertilization offers humans the opportunity to grow up and takeresponsibilityfortheharmtheyhavecausedtheenvironment.

-3 0** -5

32.Iamsuspiciousoftheideaofa'quick-fix'toclimatechange. 3 -1** 4

33. Ocean fertilization is just continuing humanity’s attempts to dominate andexploitnature.

1 -2** 0

34. Ocean fertilization could give humanity an excuse to carry on emittinggreenhousegases,meaningwemisstheopportunitytotransformourenergyandeconomicsystems.

0 -1** 2

35.I’mworriedthatpeoplewillgetgreedy,andrushaheadwithoceanfertilization. 2 0 1

36. Decision-making on ocean fertilization needs to come from a societalconversationaboutmoralityandhumanvalues.

3 0 1

37.Myfeelingsonoceanfertilizationareshapedbyanunderstandingthathumanandnon-humanworldsareentangled.Tryingtoseparatethemismeaningless.

1 1 2

38.Ifindbeautyintheideathatthroughoceanfertilization,humansmaybeabletoacquire themeansofstewarding theplanet throughthechallengeofclimatechange.

-3 4** -3

39.Oceanfertilizationmighthelpusclearupsomeofthemesswe'vemade,tohelpbringtheEarthbacktohealth.

-4* 3** -2*

40.Oceanfertilizationtakeshumanitytoofarintoanartificialworldandawayfromthenaturalorderofthings.

2 -2** 1

41.MyfeelingsonoceanfertilizationareshapedbytheunderstandingthatifyoutakecareoftheEarth,itisgoingtotakecareofyou.

2 1 4*

42.Wewon’tknowifoceanfertilizationwillworkuntilwetry. -5** 5** -1**

43.Ithinkhumansareperfectlysmartenoughtoembarkonoceanfertilization. -5 1** -4

Page11of27

44.Governmentsarefailingtotakeclimatechangeseriously,socitizensneedtodeveloptheirownsolutions,suchasoceanfertilization.

-2** 1* 0*

45. Debate about ocean fertilization is, in large part, driven by a lack of publiceducation.

0 1* 0

46.Myviewsonoceanfertilizationareinformedbymydiscomfortwiththeideaof'managing'naturalsystems.

0 0 3**

47.It'stoolatetojuststarttreadingmorelightlyandpollutingless.Weneedideaslikeoceanfertilizationtoundosomeoftheharmwe'vealreadycaused.

-3 4** -2

Table2:TheFactorArrays.FactorQ-SortValuesforEachStatement.Anasteriskindicatesastatementthatisplacedinastatisticallydifferentposition(p<.05)ontheQ-sortgridbyparticipantsthatloadonagivenfactor,towhereparticipantsthatloadonotherfactorshaveplacedthesamestatement.Adoubleasteriskindicatessignificanceatp<.01.Factor interpretation – which considers the ways in which different themes and ideas are configured andconnectedbyparticipants(Stephenson,1936)–isacreativeprocess,andthefollowingnarrativeaccountsofthefactorarraysseektoofferaninterpretationof“howthingsmustfeelforanybodywhosharesthisviewpoint”(WattsandStenner,2012:158,originalemphasis).Withthisaim,thefactorsarebothnamedandembellishedby the qualitative comments of significantly loading participants. To trace the abductive reasoning throughwhichthefactorswereconstructed,relevantQ-statementsarecitedwithinthetext3.Ademographicsummaryoftheparticipantswhosesortsdefinedeachfactorisofferedintable3.

Factor

Title

Significantlyloading

participants*

HSRCAffiliates:Non-

Affiliates

EthnicityHaida:

Non-Haida

GenderMale:Female

1a Oceanfertilizationismorallywrong.Weneedtopreservethenaturalorder. n=5 0:5 4:1 2:3

1b

Ocean fertilization should be urgentlyexplored. Through science we canrespond to the challenges of climatechange.

n=7 5:2 2:5 6:1

2Climateandoceansystemsaredynamicandinterconnected.Oceanfertilizationisveryrisky

n=7 0:7 0:7 5:2

Table3:Ademographicsummaryoftheparticipantswhosesortsdefinedeachfactor.*Participantswithconfoundedsortsarenotincludedwithinthenumberofsignificantlyloadingparticipants.

3Thestatements’factorarrayrankingsarealsohighlightedinthetext.Inbrackets,therelevantstatementisidentified,andisprecededbya colon and its accompanying factor array score. If a statement is a distinguishing statement for that factor – occupying a statisticallysignificantpositionontheQ-sortgridtothoseoccupiedbytheotherfactors–thistooishighlightedusingasingleasterisktoindicateastatisticallydifferentpositionatp<.05andadoubleasterisktoindicateastatisticallydifferentpositionatp<.01.

Page12of27

FactorinterpretationsFactor1a:Oceanfertilizationismorallywrong.Weneedtopreservethenaturalorder.Fiveparticipants(P2,P4,P8,P11,P19)areassociatedwiththisfactoratthe99%significancelevel.FouroutofthesefiveparticipantsidentifyasethnicHaida.However,resultsdonotsuggestthisperspectiveisuniquelyHaida.IncludingP11,threenon-Haidaparticipantsloadsignificantlyontothisfactor(atthe99%significancelevel);althoughtwoofthesesortsareconfounded,alsoloadingsignificantlyontoFactor2.ParticipantsthatloadontoFactor1atypicallyexpressacommitmenttotheideathattheworldhasaninherent‘naturalorder’(c.f.Castree,2005)andthatthroughOF,humansriskoversteppingtheirplaceinthisorderandintruding into realms inwhich theydon’tbelong.Whilst ‘nature’maybe revered simply for ‘nature’s’ sake,ratherthannecessarilybeingunderstoodasdivinecreation,theseconcernsfindexpressioninthenomenclaturethatthroughOFhumansareeffectively‘PlayingGod’(18:+5**)(c.f.Fleming,2007;Hamilton,2011a).Under this factor, the act of humans adding iron to the ocean is considered ‘unnatural’ (6: -4) and theintentionalityofhumanagencyoftenformedthebasisoftheseobjections.“Idon’tagreewiththis,becausewearemanipulatingit”,respondedP8.“It’sanotherstep”,P11explained(14:-2).Sincetheperceivednaturalorderisitselfofinherentvalue,humans“fiddling”aroundwiththeenvironmentthroughOF,isseenasoffensiveandvulgar(5:+4**,38:-3).OFisthereforemorallywrong(23:+4**)andrisksbringinghumansintoafundamentally‘artificial’relationshipwithnature(2:+1*;40:+2)(c.f.Carretal.,2012;Clingerman,2014;Corneretal.,2013;Elliott,1997;McKibben,2003[1989];Sandler,2012).AsfarasFactor1aisconcerned,humansdonothavethecapacitytosuccessfullyimplementaprojectonthescaleofOF(43:-5)ortoanticipatetheimpactsofsuchanintervention(10:+2**).ThismakesOFimpractical(22:-3**)andmeanscommunities,suchasOldMassett,won’teverbenefitfromcarboncreditsfromOF(7:-4**).“Wellwecan’tmanagethenaturalsystems.Wheneverwetry,it’sahopelessdisaster…It’snotuptous.Thecreatordidn’tputusheretodiddlearoundwithwhathe’dmadeperfectinthebeginning”,P4explained.ItalsomeansthattherearelikelytobesevereconsequencesforattemptingtotrytomanipulatetheoceanandclimatesystemsthroughOF(30:+4*).Theseconsequencesmaynotjustresultfromfailingtosufficientlyunderstandthesystemsinvolved(seefactor2).Rather,forsometheearthhasitsownuntameablepower,whichOFproponentsoverlook(1:+1**).OFisanactofhubrisandhumanarrogance,whichrepresentshumanityattemptingtodominateandexploitnature(33:+1).Itcouldthereforeresultinkarmicretributionandpunishmentastheuniversefightsbackandhumanspaythepricefortheiregotism(13:5**)(c.f.Corneretal.,2013;MacnaghtenandSzerszynski,2013).“EverythingthatwelearnhereinHaidaGwaiifromourculturalteachings,isthatyoudon’tdisrespecttheenvironment.Youdon’tplaywithnature.And,ifyoudo,there’sbigconsequences.So,fightingfirewithfireisn’tgoingtoputouttheflamesofclimatechange”(P2).Accordingly,thisperspectivesuggeststhat itmaynotbepossibleto justreversetheeffectsofOF,oncewe’veembarkedupondoingit.Actionshaveconsequencesininterconnectednaturalsystems(3:+3)andOFmaysetinwayachainofnegativeimpactsontheenvironmentforgenerationstocome(25:-1**).InthewordsofMacnaghtenandSzerszynski,(2013:465),forFactor1a,thereisnoneedtolivethe“globalsocialexperiment”,sincewecanknowthatOFwon’twork inadvanceofdeployment(42: -5**;39:-4*;22:-3**).Laboratorystudiesandsmaller-scalefieldtrialsmayhavearoletoplayingeoengineeringdecision-making,butthis viewpoint underscores the importance of other forms of knowledge, including instinct, experientialknowledgeandmoralreasoning(13:5**).ThisviewpointalsoresiststhepositivistassumptionthatscienceonOFcanbepolicyprescriptive(4:-2**).“Scienceisn’ttheonlygaugeofwhetherit’sagoodideaornot.Imeanmoralitydoesn’talwayscoincidewithscience”(P11).Instead,itsuggeststhatdecision-makingonOFneedstobeinformedbyareflexivesocietalconversationaboutmoralityandhumanvalues(36:+3).Localexperiencesofcolonialsubjugationanddisempowermentweredrawnonbyparticipantsloadingontothisviewpoint,toexpressconcernaboutthepotentialforOFtodrawdecisionmakingoutsideofthecommunitiesthatdecisionsaffectand“puttingthepowerofalteringglobalclimateconditionsintothehandsofafew”(P11)(11:0).OF“shouldn’tbedonebyanybody”(P11)thisviewpointdenotes.Butitespeciallyshouldn’tbedonebyprivatecompanies(9:0**),whicharedrivenbyprofit(35:+2),ratherthantheinterestsofall(21:0*).OFcouldfacilitatecompaniesexploiting theenvironmentand“buyingtheright topollute” (P19) (34:0).Humansare,

Page13of27

nevertheless,notaffordedapassiveroleinthisviewpoint(8:+1;46:0),whichisdeeplyconcernedabouthumanimpactontheplanet(29:-1)andcurrentinactiontoaddressclimatechange(44:-2**).Resolutionisnotthoughttobeachievablethrougha‘quick-fix’,likeOF(32:+3;17:-2).Insteadredressissoughtthroughpreservationistcommitmentstotreadingmorelightlyandpollutingless(47:-3).HumansneedtolearntolivewithintheEarth’slimits(28:2**)andOFarisesfrompeoplefailingtorecognisethisneed.Factor1b:Oceanfertilizationshouldbeurgentlyexplored.Throughsciencewemayrespondtothechallengesofclimatechange.Sevenparticipants (P1,P5,P10,P14,P21,P24,P26)aresignificantlyassociatedwith thisfactor.Fiveoftheseparticipantswere,orhadbeen,affiliatesof,oremployedby,theHSRC(P5,P10,P14,P24,P26).IncontrasttoFactor1a,participantsthatloadontoFactor1btendedtoexpressfrustrationwiththeideathatthehumanracejustneedstolearntolivewithintheEarth’s limits(28:0**).“Thattrainhassailed”,P1explained,(44:+1*).Indeed,reflectingclimateemergencyrhetoric(AnshelmandHansson,2014;Bellamyetal.,2012;Nerlichand Jaspal,2012), this factor suggests that thosewhocontinue toperpetuate the ‘myth’ thatanthropogenicclimatechangecanberesolvedsolelythroughmitigationarenaïveandtheirattitudesdangerous.Instead,theneedforimmediate,andpractical,solutionstoclimatechange–toundosomeoftheharmwe’vealreadycaused(47:+4**)–isveryreal(29:-3**).Weneedtothinkbiganddosoquickly(17:+2**,35:0).Echoing‘politicalrealism’framings(AnshelmandHansson,2014),inthefaceofdeficientglobalgovernanceonclimatechange(11:0),thisfactorthereforemakesspaceforcitizens(44:+1*)andprivatecompanies(9:-3**)toexplorethepotentialofOF.AmongsomeHSRCaffiliatedparticipantsthatloadedonthisfactor,thisnarrativemanifestedasamoralobligationtoact(23:-5**,19:+3**).AsP10reasoned,“Canadaisgoinginthewrongdirectionasfastasitcango.Therefore,ifyou’reinformed…andyouthinkyouhaveasolution,you’remorallyobligatedtodosomethingaboutit”(c.f.Sikka,2012).Inmanyways, this factor is premisedon an account of classic techno-optimism.Humans are an incredible,powerful,creativeforceand,withtherightinvestmentandresourcing,haveamazingcapacitytoinnovateanddevelopthemeansofovercomingenvironmentalchallengeslikeclimatechange(32:-1**,1:-4,24:-2,13:-4**,43:+1**)(c.f.Lynas,2011).Thisviewpointacknowledgesthatoceanicandclimaticsystemsarecomplexandinterconnected(3:+2).However,forthemostpartscientistsaredeemedsufficientlyproficienttobeabletoaccountforandmanagethecomplexityofthesesystems(16:-2**,1:-4)(c.f.CairnsandStirling,2014;Galarragaand Szerszynski, 2012). In this viewpoint, at the very least exploring and assessing the potential of OF, isthereforewithintheremitofhumancapabilities(43:+1**).Capturedinthissamepromissoryrhetoricaboutthepowerofscience(4:+4**),thebarrierstomakingthisassessmentareheldtobepolitical–suchassecuringsufficientinvestment–ratherthantechnical.“IthinkwehavethecapabilitytosuccessfullydoOFprojects...YeahI thinkwehavetheknow-howandcapability toreally fixglobal issues, it’s justnobodycangetonthesamepage”,remarkedP5.BecausewecanfigureouttheimpactsofOFby“go[ing]downthepathslowlyandcarefully...learn[ing]everystepoftheway”(P10)(10:-1),anyrisksofOFcanbemonitored,assessedandmanaged.Further,ifOFappearstobehavinganynegativeimpactsontheenvironmentwecanjuststopdoingit(25:+5**),soitisunlikelythatOFwouldhaveanydisastrousconsequences(30:-3**,13:-4**).OFthen,isapracticalresponsethatmayhelpusprotectwhatwehaveleft(22:+3**,20:-1**).Eitherway,inFactor1b,onlysciencecantelluswhetherOFisagoodideaornot(4:+4**)andwewon’tknowifOFwillworkuntilwetry(42:+5**).Indeed,participantsthat loadsignificantlyontothis factortendtoemploybroadlypositivistrhetoric, thatsuspendstheneedfornormative judgement indecision-making (36:0;5: -5**,13: -4**,1: -4,45:+1*).Becausescienceholds theultimate authority in this viewpoint, there is less need to democratise OF decision making (12: -1, 27: 2).However,educationwillhelpresolvecontestationaboutOF(45:1*,27:2**).IncontrasttotheviewpointinFactor1a,inFactor1btheideathatthehumanagencyinherenttoOFdamagessomepristinenaturalstateisrejectedashypocritical,giventhescaleofexistinghumaninfluenceovertheglobalenvironment(40:-2**;5:-5**,8:-2**,46:0,33:-2**).“Iamallaboutmanaging.Therearenonaturalsystemsleft...”P1explained(14:+3**).Similarly,themetaphorofhumans‘playingGod’throughOFisdeemedirrationalorillogical(18:-4**).AsP26elaborated,“onecouldapplythis[idea]toalmostanythingwedo,ouragriculture,ourmedicine,ourenergysources,etc”.Instead,notionsof‘restoration’and‘development’ofnatureareattheheartof thisviewpoint.Someparticipants loadingonto this factorsuggestedthatOFmayofferhumans theopportunitytoclearupsomeofthemessthey'vemade,tohelpbringtheEarthbacktohealth(39:+3**)(c.f.

Page14of27

NerlichandJaspal,2012)andeventotakeresponsibilityfortheharmtheyhavecausedtheenvironment(11:0)(c.f.Leopold,1986[1933];Monbiot,2013).AninterestingvariantofthisviewpointwasofferedbybothHaidaparticipantsthatloadedsignificantlyontothisfactor,whodescribedOFas‘givingback’totheenvironment,inkeepingwithtraditionalHaidateachings(15:0).“ComingfromaFirstNation’sperspective,wearestewardsoftheland…It’skindofwhatwedidwithOF.Inasensewe’rejustgivingitwhatitneed[s]”(P5)(41:+1,37:+1).OtherssuggestedthatOFisnotdissimilartootherresourcemanagementresponsessuchasfertilizingourcrops,tomeetthedemandsofarapidlygrowingglobalpopulation(26:+2**).Inthisway,respondentslinkedOFtobroader human innovation and technological development trajectories, which have emerged to meet thedemands of increasing resource pressures and which continue expanding the frontiers of modern society.Continuingthistrajectoryisfundamentaltoadvancingthewellbeingofall(21:-3**)andtosustainingfuturepopulations (24: -2), this factor denotes. Our lives would therefore be “prettymean spirited” (P1) if thesetechnologicaladvancesweren’tallowedtohappen.Indeed,inthisfactor,technologicalinnovationtostewardtheplanet through thechallengeofclimatechange,holds itsown intrinsicvalue (38:+4**). “[OF]wouldbeelegant,justlikeasimplesolutionthatwouldletusdoallthesethingsandexploittheeconomicdevelopmentoffossilfuels,whilenotdestroyingourplanet.Wouldn’tthatbenice”(P1).Asthisviewpointseesit,wehavealreadychangedtheclimatesystembyemittinggreenhousegases,sotryingtochangeitagainwithOFisnodifferent.Atleastthistimewearedoingitwithoureyesopen(14:+3**,2:-1).Thus,whilstthereissomehesitationaboutunfetteredmanagementofnaturalsystemswritlarge(46:0),giventhat OF only involves giving natural systems “a little tweak” (P10), the intentionality of active humanmanagement,exercisingthepowerofscienceandinstrumentalreason,meansOFislikelytobesaferandmoredesirable than unmediated greenhouse gas emissions (c.f.Macnaghten and Szerszynski, 2013): “Conscious,measuredmanipulationofecosystemsispreferableasitrequiresanentityorindividualtotakeresponsibility.Thebusinessasusualbeliefsystemunderstandsthatouractionsarehavinganimpactonnaturalsystemsbuttakesno responsibility...weneed tobetter understand thenatural systemand learn toworkwith it for thebettermentofall”(P24)(21:-3**).AmorelegitimateconcernofOF,forthisviewpoint,however,isthatitcouldgivehumanityanexcusetocarryonemittinggreenhousegases,meaningwemisstheopportunitytotransformourenergyandeconomicsystems;whichisstillfundamentallyneeded(34:-1**).Factor2:Climateandoceansystemsaredynamicandinterconnected.Oceanfertilizationisveryrisky.Sevenparticipants are significantly associated with this factor (P3, P13, P16, P18, P20, P22, P23). None of theseparticipants identify as ethnic Haida, or have ever been employees of the HSRC. Factor 2 is significantlycorrelated with Factor 1a (p <.01). Nevertheless, Factor 2 was retained as a unique factor since differentprioritiesandemphasesfoundexpressionwithinthefactorestimate,capturingaqualitativelydistinctpointofview.TwosortswerealsoconfoundedbetweenFactor1aandFactor2.Togetherthisimpliesthatindividualsmayblendtheseviewpoints(CooganandHerrington,2011).AttheheartoftheFactor2viewpoint,istheMalthusianassumptionthattheEarthhasafinitecarryingcapacityandthatitcannotcopewiththedemandscurrentlybeingplacedonit(24:+3**).Anthropogenicclimatechangeis indicative of this strained carrying capacity and of deficient climate governance (11: -3**) and there istherefore an urgent need for remedial action. Participants that load significantly onto this viewpointconsequentlytendtoempathisewithwhyproponentshavecometoexpressinterestinOF(29:-1).“TosuggestthattheneedforOFhasbeenover-exaggeratedwouldsuggestthatclimatechangeisn’tthatbad,orthatwedon’tneedsolutionstoclimatechange”,explainedP20.Yet,incontrasttoFactor1b,theideathatapracticalresponse,ora‘quick-fix’,toclimatechangecanbefoundinOFisregardedasdeeplysuspicious(32:+4;22:-1**).“Itdidn’thappenquickandit’snotgoingtoendquick”,P13explained.ThisreluctancetoexploreOFisnotbecauseOFisinsomeway‘playingGod’(18:-1**),aswasdescribed in Factor 1a. Nor is ‘intervention in natural systems’ morally ‘wrong’ per se (23: -2**). Indeed,participantsthat loadsignificantlyontoFactor2tendtobelesscommittedtotheideaofa ‘pristine’naturalorderandmoreopentotheideaof‘rambunction’(Marris,2011).“Wealreadydoalotofartificialthings”,P20explained(c.f.Clingerman,2014;Corneretal.,2013).Instead,theprimaryobjectiontoOFinFactor2,isbasedon a cautious and sceptical interpretation of technological capacity. For Factor 2, a key condition of OF’sacceptability, is that research is able to predict andmanage the impacts of implementation (4: +1**) (c.f.MacnaghtenandSzerszynski,2013).Yet,attestingtothefinitudeofhumanknowledgeandthecomplexityof

Page15of27

interconnectedclimateandoceansystems,thisviewpointdoesnotbelievesuchconditionscanbemet.“Wecan’tdothemath…Thesystemistoobig.Therearesomethingsthatwejustcan’tunderstand”,P22explained(43:-4).Inthisviewpoint,naturalsystemsaresointerconnectedandcomplexthatpredictingtheconsequencesofOFisverydifficult–evenimpossible–andthusOFmaysetinwayachainofreactionsandrunawayimpacts(3:+5**,46:3**,25:-4**)whichcouldhavegrievousconsequencesforhumanity(30:+2*)(Carr,MercerandPalmer,2012;Clingerman,2014;Corneretal.,2013;PorterandHulme,2013).“It’slikedroppingapebbleintoapondandyou’vegotaripplegoingout...everythingwillbeaffected.AndthisOFthing,youcanstopdoingit,butyoucan’tnegatewhat’salreadybeendone”(P3).Consequencesarisingfromtheintroductionofnon-nativespeciestoHaidaGwaiiwasheldasaparticularlysalientlocalexampleofhowa“cascadeofimpacts”mayarisefromattempts to alter natural systemsby introducing newelements. “HaidaGwaii is a good example of humancreated problems...”, one respondent explained. “Deer were introduced about 100 years ago... When ithappenedinthelate1800’sIdon’tthinkanybodyhadaperceptionofwhattheiractionwouldactuallyendupdoingintermsofhowtheywouldloseberryproduction,thattheunderstoryoftheislandswouldbebasicallystripedcleanbythedeer”.Thisviewpointemphasizesecologicalrelationships(3:+5**)andtheinterconnectednessandinterdependenciesbetweenhumanandnon-humanworlds(37:+2,15:+2).“Weliveinaworldwherethere’sanecologywhereweallhaveourparttoplay”,P16explained.Thus,thisviewpointatteststhat‘ifyoutakecareoftheEarth,itisgoingtotakecareofyou’(41:+4*).Butsincenotechnologicalfix,OFincluded,willgetaroundthefactthattheearthcannotcopewiththeburdenofdemandscurrentlyplacedonit(24:+3**),inFactor2‘takingcare’oftheEarthdenotesamore restricted role forhumanagency thanFactor1b;advocatinganapproachoriented towardswithdrawinghumaninfluence(8:+1),andavoiding“overmanagementofnaturalresources”(P3)(38:-3,31:-5,20:+4).Factor2callsinsteadforarefocusingonthestructuralreasonsforwhytheplanet‘isbeingstretchedtoitslimit’(34:+2,24:+3**).“IfsomethinglikeOFisseentobeaninstant'fix'toourverycomplicatedsocial-ecologicalsystemsthroughouttheworld,humanitymayfeelasthoughwecancontinuewithourgrowingoilandgascultureandeconomyinsteadoflookingtochangeourrelationshipwitheachotherandwiththeearth”(P25).Ratherthanfertilizingtheoceans,humansneedtobewillingtochangeandtolearntolivewithintheEarth’slimits(28:+5**),usingmoresimpleandprecisemeans(20:+4),whichprioritisereducedconsumption.Thisshouldbepursuedalongsidecautioustechnological innovation,employingasfaraspossibleapproacheswith “known impacts” (P16) (26: -3). Alongside their Q-sorts, participants loading on this factor sometimessuggested“contained”(P18)(i.e.encapsulatedgeoengineering;seeRoyalSociety,2009;BracmortandLattanzio,2013) approaches should be prioritised. But for this factor, any strategy should be approached slowly andcautiously. “I thinkweneed to [respond to climate change]…quickly but small. Becausewedon’t know theoutcomes.Ithinkthebiggertheexperimentifyouwill,themoredangerwehaveofmakingproblemsthatwedon’tanticipate...”(P18)(17:-1).OF,Factor2concludes,isthereforelikelytojustcompoundthechallengesweface.Or,inthewordsofP13,“putmoredungontheheap”.Whilstthiswastheprevailingviewpointdescribedbythisfactor,severalsignificantlyloadingparticipantsdidhowever suggest that some of their rationales may break down under certain climate futures and that,dependingontheseverityoffutureclimaterisks,unbridledresistancetoOFmaybe‘naïve’.AsP16explained;“allofthesethings[geoengineeringproposals]representtremendousrisks,okay.Andifyourmind-set isthatwe’reattheprecipice,wellthenmaybeyouhavetotakethoserisks.Idon’tthinkwe’reattheprecipicenow”.Whateverhappens,asarguedthroughFactor1a,forFactor2,OFshouldbekeptoutofthehandsofprivatecompanies(0:+3**),where“greedprevails”(P16)anditrequiresrigorousdemocraticoversight(21:+2*,27:+3)(c.f.MacnaghtenandSzerszynski,2013).DiscussionPerceptionsofgeoengineeringaslocallycontingentTheHSRC,wasaprojectconducted“bypeople inaplace”(Buck,2014).Forresearchparticipants,meaning-

Page16of27

makingsurroundingthe‘geoengineering’ambitionsoftheHSRCdependedonlocalspecificitiesandattachmentsto the landscape (c.f. Jasanoff, 2010). Local vulnerability to anthropogenic climate change, aswell as socialvulnerabilities, such as ongoing Indigenous disadvantage, shaped perceptions of the project, and of thedesirabilityandfeasibilityofOFmoregenerally.Anextensivelocalhistoryofnaturalresourceextractionanddepletion,aswellas local familiaritywithpursuingcarboncredits inexchangeforenvironmentalprotection,wereinfluentialtoitsreception.ReactionstotheprojectalsotappedintotheongoingdesiretorekindlegreaterHaida cultural identity, political autonomy – and even national sovereignty – following a painful history ofEuropeancolonialatrocitiesandthedispossessionofHaidarights,languageandtraditions.Inasimilarvein,debateabouttheHSRCbecameembroiledinenduringissuesoflandrightsandcontestationaboutresourceaccessandpermitsandaboutthepermissibilityofdifferentformsoflocalindustry.Additionally,participantsoftenmadesenseoftheHSRCprojectthroughdeepspiritualandpracticalrelationshipstothelandandsea,taught inHaidaoralhistory.MostvisiblytheseincludedHaidaculturalandspiritualaffiliationswithlocalsalmonrunsandlocaldependenceonnaturalresourcesforlivelihoodsandnutrition.PeoplesimilarlyoftenunderstoodtheHSRCprojectthroughearlierexperienceswiththeCanadianfederalgovernmentandthroughahistoryofoutsidersattemptingtospeakforIndigenouspeople.Geography and place were centrally implicated in how people understood the HSRC project. The naturalabundanceof local biodiversity, recent fluctuations in local salmon runs, the island’s experienceswithnon-nativeintroducedspeciesandconcernsabouttheEnbridgepipelineproposaltobringoiltankerstosurroundingwaters,forexample,allshapedinterpretations.Sotoodidrecentgeophysicalevents,suchasEarthquakesandthe2008eruptionofKasatochivolcano.Emphasizingtheinterrelatednessofpeople,knowledgesandplaces,national debates about theAlberta Tar Sands and about the Canadian government’s participation in globalclimate governance structures also visibly shaped the reception of the project (see also Gannon, 2015).Participantsinthiscasestudythereforedidnotspeakabout‘geoengineering’inisolationfromthetexturesoftheirdailylifeandtheirwiderexperiencesandperspectivesontheworld.Insteaddebateaboutthedesirabilityand feasibility of the ‘geoengineering’ ambitions of the HSRC spoke to different notions of identity, place,ethnicityandcommunity.ComparingandcontrastingviewpointsthroughQ-MethodologyTheselocallycontingentmeaningswereabstractedbytheQ-Methodologyprocess,and,sinceQ-Methodologyisessentiallyadatareductionprocess,thefactorinterpretationsinherentlyconstrainsocio-culturalrelativism.Nevertheless,webelievethatQ-MethodologyhasprovenavaluablemeansofstructuringouranalysisoftheHSRC case study, as the factors havehelped to highlight key differences in accounts of thedesirability andfeasibilityofOFthroughtheHSRCcasestudy(Edenetal.,2005).Factor1a,forexample,offersaninterpretationofOFwhichseeshumansoversteppingtheirplaceinthenaturalorderandintrudingintorealmsinwhichtheydon’tbelong(18:+5**).Yet,forFactor1bandFactor2,thistypeofreasoningholdslittlecredibility.Factor1binsteadpreferstorationaliseexplorationofOFaspartofawidersocio-technicalprojectofhumandevelopment,inwhichonlyscienceandinstrumentalreasoningcanconnotethevalueofOF(42:+5**).Factor2,meanwhile,positionsOFwithinstorylinesaboutthecomplexitiesofnaturalsystems,suggestingoptimalsolutionsemergefromreflectiononthelimitsofhumancapacity(32:+4)andofnaturalsystemsthemselves(28:+5**).TheQ-analysishasalsohighlightedanumberofQ-statementsthatwererankedsimilarlybyparticipantsthatloaded onto all factors, which suggests that some statements were less controversial among the studyparticipants.Apparentconsensusstatementsshouldnotbeover-interpreted,since,aswillbeseenbelow,theirseeminglysimilarrankingsmayconcealdifferencesinunderstandingsofthestatementsacrossfactors(Brown,1980). Nevertheless, these items are worth some reflection for opportunities that they may present forconstructive dialogue between perhaps non-consensual, but non-confrontational aspects of participants’accounts(Webleretal.,2009).Statement37–‘myfeelingsonoceanfertilizationareshapedbyanunderstandingthathumanandnon-humanworldsareentangled.Tryingtoseparatethemismeaningless’–wasthestatementrankedmostsimilarlybythefactors.ForFactor1a,Statement37spoketoasenseofinterconnectednessbetweenhuman,non-human–andattimessupernatural–worlds,premisedonanaccountofreverenceforthenaturalworld(13:+5**)andaninherentnaturalorder(18:+5**).Meanwhile,forFactor1bandFactor2,thisstatementhadmoreresonance

Page17of27

withliteraturesthathavelabelledthecurrenterathe‘Anthropocene’(Crutzen,2002a,2002b;Steffen,etal.,2007);anageinwhichhumanshavebecomethedominantforceofchangeonEarthandinwhichhumanandnon-humanworldsarelinkedinacommontrajectoryofmutualdependenceandself-actualisation.Similarly,ageneralrolefor‘scientificenquiry’indecision-makingaboutgeoengineeringwasdescribedbyeachofthefactors,yetthenatureofthatrolevariedsignificantly.ForFactor1b,empiricalenquiryoffershumanstheabilitytoobserve,measureandrecordtheimpactsofOFonthemarineandclimaticsystems,andthefactordescribesthescientificmethodastheonlyroutethroughwhichreliableknowledgeaboutthedesirabilityandfeasibilityofOFcanbeattained.Factor2meanwhile,offersamorecautiousandscepticalinterpretationofthepotentialofthescientificmethod,whileFactor1aseesscientificknowledgeasoneformoftruthamongmanyand positions science alongside different forms of vernacular, cultural, spiritual, moral and experientialknowledge.Furthermore,allfactorinterpretationsalsoappearedtobebroadlyshapedbyageneralsenseofresponsibilityforensuring thehealthandwellbeingof theenvironment (e.g. statement41),andoften reflecta feelingofconnectionto,anddependenceon,theearthandotherformsoflife(e.g.statement15).Indeed,participantsloadingonallfactorsoftenusedtheterm‘stewardship’todescribethisrole.DescriptionsoftherolethatOFcould play in such ‘stewardship’ diverged. Nevertheless, that participants typically described a sense ofentangled interdependence between themselves and their environment – and that this imbued mostparticipantswithastrongcommitmenttotheirparticularprescriptionforenvironmentalprotection–isperhapsanencouragingareaofconsensus,thatshouldnotbeoverlookedinthequestforconstructivedialogueonOF.Puttingfamiliargeoengineeringstorylines‘inconversation’ThroughthediverseinterpretationsofthedesirabilityandfeasibilityofOF,capturedwithinthefactors,analysishasillustratedtheconstructednatureofgeoengineering(c.f.Hulme,2009).TheHSRCinvokedadiscursivearenainwhichpeoplecanbeseentellingfundamentallydifferentstoriesaboutwhattheythinkofascommonsenseintheworldand,morenormatively,whatmatters,whatisdesirable,and,equally,whatshouldbeavoided.Thefactorsconstructdifferentnotionsof‘nature’and‘naturalness’,offerdiverseinterpretationsofthehumanroleandpurpose, constructdifferentboundariesbetween ‘natural’ and ‘human’worlds,are shapedbydifferentsecular, spiritual and religious beliefs, afford different forms of ‘nature’ value and afford different forms ofknowledgelegitimacy.Theemergenceofabipolarfactorinthispaperbeginstohintathowdeeplyentrenchedsomeofthesecompetingvaluesandperspectivesmaybe.Yet it isnotable, thatsuchcontestation is largelyignoredbyexistingformalisedframeworksforassessinggeoengineering,whichtypicallyconsideronlylimitedtechnocratic,risk-basedmetrics(Bellamyetal.,2012).Thefactorinterpretationsinthisresearchcannotbeunderstoodtohaveanyuncomplicatedcorrespondencewithparticipants’livedexperienceofOF;notleastbecausenoparticipantloadedperfectlyontoanyQ-factor.They do, however, offer interpretations of general homologies of observed similarities in participantperspectivesandthustheyserveasusefulheuristicsthatofferaninterpretationofwherekeycommonalitiesand differences between perspectives lie. Q has therefore proven a useful means of putting differentgeoengineering“storiesinconversation”(Buck,2010:9);allowingustosituateperspectiveswithinthecontextofothers.InthecontextofthelocaltensionsurroundingtheHSRCinHaidaGwaii,itisalsorelevantthatithasallowedustodothiswithoutbringingactorstogetherintoapotentiallyveryemotionalandhighlychargedfocusgroupsetting(Danielsonetal.,2009).As described, the precise ‘ways of talking’ about ‘geoengineering’ and the specific cultural features of‘geoengineering’discoursewereinexorablyuniquetothiscasestudy;situatedinandinterpretedthroughlocalexperience. Throughdiscourse about the ‘geoengineering’ ambitions of theHSRC, this paper has, however,within the factor narratives themselves, also traced, supplemented and developed discourses, frames,storylines, explanations, phrases, metaphors, themes, images, tropes, exemplars, lexical choices, policypositionsandevaluationsthatarefamiliartoearliergeoengineeringsocialscienceliteratures.The fact that recognizable routines ofmeaning-making, described throughmore abstract entry points intothinkingabouttheideaofgeoengineering–anddeployedinrelationtoarangeofgeoengineeringtechnologies,includingsolarradiationmanagementproposals–canbetracedfromthisplace-basedexperienceofOF,isan

Page18of27

interesting finding in itself.Geoengineeringtechnologieshaveverydifferentphilosophical,ethical, risk, legaland governance profiles (Hulme, 2014; Royal Society, 2009; Vaughan and Lenton, 2011). Nevertheless,familiarityofsomeoftheinterpretativeresourceswithinthecasestudydiscoursesuggeststhat,inlightoftheintentionality that is invokedwith the ideaofmanaging theclimate inall forms,manyof theseare likely tocontinuetofindresonanceacrossarangeofentrypointsintothinkingaboutgeoengineering.Italsosuggeststhat earlier deliberative methods have done well to create ostensibly meaningful dialogues and publicconsultationexercises thathaveovercomesomeof themethodological challenges thatarise fromexploringgeoengineering‘upstream’,whereawarenessofgeoengineeringistypicallylow(e.g.Bellamyetal.,2016;Corneretal.,2013;MacnaghtenandSzerszynski,2013).Connecting‘geoengineering’inHaidaGwaiiwithliteraturesonecologicalworldviewsQ-Methodology does not aim to generalize findings towider populations (Watts and Stenner, 2012), or toestablishwhatproportionofthesepopulationsmightidentifywithonefactoroveranother(Brown,1980).Yet,thereareotherreasonstosuggestthat‘geoengineering’atthe‘edgeoftheworld’,mightactuallyhavesomevalue for helping to make sense of some of the ways in which ‘geoengineering’ debates are constructedelsewhere.Contestationabouttheroleandnatureof‘nature’andhumanagency,seeninourcasestudyfactors,drawsonalonghistoryofdebateabouttherelationshipbetweennatureandhumans.Indeed,reflectingtheinevitably‘informed’approachtogroundedanalysis(Thornberg,2012),thefactorsstarttohighlightcontestedphilosophicalgroundofwiderenvironmentalmanagementandrestorationdiscoursesandconnectwithculturalmeaningsexpressedanddebatedinotherdomains.Interpretativeparallelswiththeworkof‘worldviews’scholarAnnickDeWittwarrantsparticularconsideration.DeWitt(Hedlund-deWitt,2014;DeWittandHedlund,2017;DeWittetal.,2017)positstheexistenceof,atleast,threemajorworldviewstructuresintheWestwhich,reflectingconventionsofearlierresearch(Inglehart,1997;O’Brien,2009;Taylor,1989),shelabels‘traditional’,‘modern’and‘post-modern’worldviews(DeWittandHedlund,2017:318).Aswellashavingawidespread“culturalcaché”(Hedlund-deWitt,2013:251)thatallowsthemtobegraspedrelatively intuitively,shesuggeststhatthese labelsreflectthe“historical-developmentaltrajectory of cultural epochs and worldviews in the West, described by philosophers of Western thought,historians,andsocialscientists”(DeWittandHedlund,2017:315).DeWitt tentatively depicts ‘logically constructed’models of these ‘ideal-typical’worldviews, to delineate aprovisional interpretation of the primary assumptions, themes and concerns of each of the ideal-typicalworldviews.Sheconstructstheseusinganorganisingscheme,depictingwhatshedescribesasthefivemajoraspectsofworldviews:Ontology,epistemology,axiology,anthropologyandsocietalvision(Hedlund-deWitt,2012;DeWittandHedlund,2017).Theseheuristicsaredesignedtoofferonly“sweepinggeneralisationsofthecomplexitiesandambiguitiesofreality”(Hedlund-deWitt,2014:8316)andarepresentedasneitherexhaustivenordefinitive.Yet,DeWitthasappliedtheseheuristicswithsomeconvincingresultstosuggestthattheseideal-typicalworldviewsmayshapepro-environmentalattitudesandsustainablelifestylechoices(Hedlund-deWitt,2013).Shealsosuggeststhatthey informdifferentvisionsof ‘development’and‘qualityof life’ (Hedlund-deWitt,2014)andthattheyunderliethedominantsocialresponsesto industrialbiotechnology(DeWittetal.,2017).Somenotableinterpretativeoverlapcanbetracedbetweentheconfigurationofontological,epistemologicalandaxiological,assumptionsconstructedthroughourQ-studyfactorsandtheontology,epistemology,axiology,anthropologyandsocietalvisiondelineatedinDeWitt’sideal-typical‘traditional’,‘modern’and‘post-modern’worldviewheuristics.Factor1a‘Oceanfertilizationismorallywrong.Weneedtopreservethenaturalorder’sharessomebroadconsistencieswithDeWitt’s‘Traditional’worldviewheuristic.Factor1b‘Oceanfertilizationshouldbeurgentlyexplored.Throughsciencewecanrespondtothechallengesofclimatechange’,sharessomegeneralsimilaritieswithDeWitt’s‘Modern’worldviewheuristic.WhileFactor2,‘Climateandoceansystemsaredynamic and interconnected. Ocean fertilization is very risky’, in some ways echoes the configuration ofassumptions described through DeWitt’s ‘Post-Modern’ worldview heuristic. These parallels are not neat,complete or consistent. However, table 4 below highlights some of the ontological, epistemological andaxiologicalassumptionsthatfindsomeinterpretativesalienceacrossDeWitt’sideal-typicalworldviewsandourQ-studyfactors;themselvesconstructedtoexpressparticipants’viewsvis-à-visOF.

Page19of27

DeWitt’s‘Traditional’Worldview

DeWitt’s‘Modern’Worldview

DeWitt’s‘Post-Modern’Worldview

Factor1a:‘Oceanfertilizationismorallywrong.Weneedtopreservethenaturalorder’.

Factor1b:Oceanfertilizationshouldbeurgentlyexplored.

Throughsciencewecanrespondtothechallengesof

climatechange.

Factor2:Climateandoceansystemsaredynamicandinterconnected.Oceanfertilizationisveryrisky.

Ontology

Natureasembodimentofmeaningfulimposedorder(e.g.God’screation/Mother

Nature).

Natureasinstrumentalresourceforhumanitytouse.

Secularcosmology

Natureascomplexandinterconnected.

TheEarthhasnaturallimits.Secularcosmology.

EpistemologyDifferentformsofmoraland

religiousknowledgeareaffordedparticularvalue.

Trustinscience,technologyandinstrumentalreasoning.

(Post)positivism.

Philosophicalpragmatism.Systems-view.

AxiologyHumility.Respectfor

tradition,communityandsacrifice.

Materialist-valueorientation.Protectionofindividual

freedoms.

Post-materialistvalues.Globaljusticedimension

emphasised.

Anthropology Humanssubjecttomeaningfulnaturalorder.

Self-optimizinghumanbeingdevelopsnaturetoadvance

humanwellbeing.

Humansincautiousrelationshiptonature.

SocietalVision

Technologicalinterventioninnatureaprioriunacceptable. Technologicaloptimism. Techno-cautious.

Table4:Interpretativeparallelsbetweende-Witt’sideal-typical‘traditional’,‘modern’and‘postmodern’worldviewsandthe configuration of ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions interpreted from the Q-Methodologyfactors.Constructedfromfactorsinterpretationsinsection3.2andfromTable1in(DeWittetal.,2017:74).Q-factorsasprovisionalorientingheuristicsforreflexivityindecision-makingThatthestudyfactorsconstructideasfamiliarto,andenduringacross,othertechnologicalandenvironmentaldebatesemphasizesthatideasof‘geoengineering’aresituatedwithinthelegacyofanexpansivehistory.Italsounderlinesthataccountsof‘geoengineering’serveasvectorsformoregeneralsocialandculturalanxieties,aswellasissue-specificconcernsandproblemdefinitions.However,interpretativeparallelswithbroaderWesternculturalcurrentsinhumanmeaning-makingalsosuggeststhatthehomologiesofperspectivecapturedintheQ-study factor interpretations, couldpotentially serveasusefulmnemonics forhelping to conceptualisemoregeneralhomologiesofperspective;andsomeofthedeepercontestedvalues,assumptionsandepistemologiesabouttheroleandnatureof‘nature’andhumanagency,thatdrivepubliccontestationaboutgeoengineeringinthecontemporaryWest(DeWittandHedlund,2017).Further researchwould be needed to test the validity of this claim for other geoengineering technologies;especiallyoutsideofWesterncontexts.Andthefactorsmustbeunderstoodasprovisionalorientingheuristics,tobetreatedreflexivelyandimprovedupon;ratherthanassomekindofcomprehensiveexplanatorytheory(Mamadouh,1999). Finely curatedgrandnarrativeshold theirownpotential to ‘closedown’debateand todisempower, marginalise, exclude and oppress alternative perspectives. Nevertheless, provided that thelimitationsofthesefactorsareacknowledged,suchprovisionalorientingheuristicsholdthepotentialtohelpopenupreflexivityingeoengineeringdebates.Theycouldencouragecriticalself-reflectionamongpolicymakerson the core assumptions and motivations shaping different geoengineering problem diagnoses and policyprescriptions,whichcouldhelpdecision-makerstoreconstructtheirapproachtogeoengineeringwithaclearerfocus.Indeed,thefactorinterpretationsneednotbe‘comprehensive’oruniversallysalienttobeabletoperformsomeformofheuristicroleinthisregard.Thefactorsmayalsobeabletoservesomepurposeasascaffoldforcommunicationandfordevelopingmutualunderstandingaroundsomeofthevaluesandmotivationsthatshapealternativeperspectivesinrespecttogeoengineering.MainstreamEurocentricapproachestomanagementoftheglobalenvironmenthavealonghistoryofprivileging

Page20of27

solutionsthatfitwithintheirownproblemdefinitions(Bravo,2009;BirdRose,2004;HowittandSuchet-Pearson,2006).TheIPCCprocesshasnotbeenimmunetosuchontologicalandepistemologicalhegemony.Byseekingglobalknowledge“convergenceanduniformity”(Beck,2012:3)theIPCCvalidatesandlegitimatescertaintypesofscientificevidencethroughitsveryselectionofsources.Itsliteraturesreflectgeo-politicalpowerimbalances;withexpertsfromdevelopingcountrieshavinglimitedparticipationinthedraftingofthereports(HulmeandMahony,2010).Andinterpretative,place-basedandindigenousknowledgeshavebeenparticularcasualtiesoftheIPCC’sepistemologicalframing(HulmeandMahony,2010;BjurströmandPolk,2011;Beck,2012;Fordetal.,2012).Thisresearchsuggeststhatgeoengineeringtechnologiesarealwaysgoingtobecontestedbecausetheyinteractwithmultipleanddiversewaysinwhichpeopleunderstandhumannatureinrelationtothenon-humanworld.Thispaperhasthereforerevealedthatanyclaimtoone‘unanimous’,‘comprehensive’,‘rational’,‘correct’orotherwise ‘superior’ knowledge of geoengineering, would be an inherently political act, only achievable insettingswherethemultiplicityofcompetingvaluesandbeliefshasbeensilenced.Howittetal.(2012:48)arguethat global environmental challenges like climate change “should be addressed as opportunities fordecolonization”(Howittetal.,2012:48).Exploringdivergingstandpointsandgeneratingabetterunderstandingofthebeliefsandvaluesthatunderpindifferentattitudesandresponsestowardstheideaofgeoengineeringwill,therefore,befundamentaltoensuringamoreproductive,creative,inclusiveandequitabledebateaboutthisissueofvastglobalconsequence.ConclusionsRussGeorgeandhisoff-islandcolleaguesfoundanentrypointtobringtheideaof‘geoengineering’tothevillageof OldMassett through a unique confluence of social, political, cultural and environmental circumstances.Despite literaturewhichsuggeststhatpeoplefinddebatesaboutclimatechangetobeabstract,andhardtorelatetotheirdaily lives (seeJasanoff,2010), theHSRC’sOFprojectprovokedasiteofextensive,andoftensophisticated,discussionaboutthedesirabilityandfeasibilityofOFasageoengineeringresponsetothethreatof anthropogenic climate change. This provided a novel opportunity to consider public understandings ofgeoengineeringwithina‘realworld’andsituatedcontext.This research has shown that debate about the desirability and feasibility of exploring the geoengineeringpotentialofOFthroughtheHSRCtookshapearoundfundamentallydifferentvalues,meaningsandexpectationsaboutthenatureandconditionofnaturalsystems,aboutthetypesofknowledgethatcanbeconsideredvalidandabouttheroleofhumanbeings.‘Geoengineering’inHaidaGwaiiwasimbuedwithdebateaboutvaluesandmeanings,aboutrightsandresponsibilities,andaboutinstinctsandaspirationsabouthowtheworldis,andhowitshouldbe.TheemergenceofabipolarQ-Methodologyfactorhintsathowdeeplyentrenchedsomeofthesecompetingvaluesandperspectivesmaybe.ThewaysinwhichthesedebatesunfoldedthroughtheHSRCwerecontextuallyunique,embeddedwithinlocalhistories,sitespecificitiesandattachmentstothelandscape;andreflectiveofdistinctivecultural,politicalandgeographicalcontext.Inthisplace-basedexperienceofgeoengineering,locallyspecificmeaningsinteractedwithfamiliarglobaldiscoursesandinterpretativeresources,reflectingtheinterconnectednatureofglobalpeople,knowledges and places (Beck, 2007). This situated the ‘local’within the ‘global’, placed ‘ocean fertilization’withindebatesaboutothergeoengineeringtechnologiesandconnected‘geoengineering’inHaidaGwaiiwithwiderculturalmeaningsandliteraturesthatconsiderthehumanrelationshipwithnature.TheHSRCcasestudyhasstartedtoopenupgeoengineeringdebatestoawiderrangeofperspectives.Indeed,to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study of perceptions of geoengineering to consultindigenous people. Through the Q-Methodology factors constructed in this research, this paper has alsodevelopednewtoolsforreflexivityingeoengineeringgovernance;toexposethevisionsbeingpursuedandsomeofthevaluesbeingignored.Suchreflexivitywillbefundamentalifgeoengineering–atanyspatialscale–istoavoidbecominganythingotherthanasimpleexpressionofhegemony.ConflictofInterestTheauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.

Page21of27

ReferencesAnshelm, J.andHansson,A. (2014) ‘TheLastChancetoSavethePlanet?AnAnalysisof theGeoengineeringAdvocacy Discourse in the Public Debate’, Environmental Humanities, 5, pp. 101–123. Available at:www.environmentalhumanities.org.

Beck, S. (2012) ‘The challenges of building cosmopolitan climate expertise: The case of Germany’,WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:ClimateChange,3,pp.1–17.doi:10.1002/wcc.151.

Beck, U. (2007) ‘A new cosmopolitanism is in the air’, signandsight.com, 20 November. Available at:http://www.signandsight.com/features/1603.html.

Bellamy,R.,Chilvers,J.andVaughan,N.E.(2016)‘DeliberativeMappingofoptionsfortacklingclimatechange:Citizensandspecialists“openup”appraisalofgeoengineering.’,PublicUnderstandingofScience,25(3),pp.269–286.doi:10.1177/0963662514548628.

Bellamy,R.,Chilvers,J.,Vaughan,N.E.andLenton,T.M.(2012)‘Areviewofclimategeoengineeringappraisals’,WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:ClimateChange,3,pp.597–615.doi:10.1002/wcc.197.

Bellamy,R.,Chilvers,J.,Vaughan,N.E.andLenton,T.M.(2013)‘“Openingup”geoengineeringappraisal:Multi-CriteriaMappingofoptionsfortacklingclimatechange’,GlobalEnvironmentalChange,23(5),pp.926–937.doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011.

Bellamy,R., Lezaun, J. andPalmer, J. (2017) ‘Publicperceptionsof geoengineering researchgovernance:Anexperimental deliberative approach’, Global Environmental Change, 45, pp. 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.06.004.

Belter, C. W. and Seidel, D. J. (2013) ‘A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research’, WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:ClimateChange,4(5),pp.417–427.doi:10.1002/wcc.229.

BirdRose,D.(2004)ReportsfromaWildCountry:EthicsforDecolonisation.Sydney,Australia:UniversityofNewSouthWalesPress.

Bjurström,A.andPolk,M.(2011)‘Physicalandeconomicbiasinclimatechangeresearch:AscientometricstudyofIPCCThirdAssessmentReport’,ClimaticChange,108,pp.1–22.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0018-8.

Boettcher,M.andSchäfer,S.(2017)‘Reflectingupon10yearsofgeoengineeringresearch:IntroductiontotheCrutzen+10specialissue’,Earth’sFuture,5(3),pp.266–277.doi:10.1002/2016EF000521.

Boia,L.(2005)WeatherintheImagination.London,UK:ReaktionBooks.

Bracmort,K.andLattanzio,R.K.(2013)‘Geoengineering :GovernanceandTechnologyPolicy’,CRSReportforCongress Congressional Research Service, November 26, 2013, R41371. Available at:https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf.

Bravo,M.T.(2009)‘Voicesfromtheseaice:thereceptionofclimateimpactnarratives’,JournalofHistoricalGeography,35,pp.256–278.doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.09.007.

Brown,S.R.(1980)Politicalsubjectivity:ApplicationsofQmethodologyinpoliticalscience.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Brown, S. R. (1993) ‘A primer on Q methodology’, Operant subjectivity, 16(3/4), pp. 91–138. doi:10.1177/104973239600600408.

Buck,H.J.(2010)‘WhatCanGeoengineeringDoforUs ?Publicparticipationandthenewmedialandscape.’,Paperforworkshop:TheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement,18Oct2010,UniversityofMontana.Availableat:http://www.umt.edu/ethics/ethicsgeoengineering/Workshop/articles1/HollyBuck.pdf.

Buck,H.J.(2012)‘Geoengineering:Re-makingClimateforProfitorHumanitarianIntervention?’,DevelopmentandChange,43(1),pp.253–270.doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01744.x.

Buck, H. J. (2013) ‘Climate engineering: Spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content analysis of news mediaframing’, inMethmann,C.,Rothe,D.,andStephen,B. (eds)(De-)constructingtheGreenhouse: InterpretativeapproachestoGlobalClimateGovernance.London,UK:Routledge,pp.166–180.

Buck,H.J.(2014)Where‘geoengineering’happens:AlookattheHaidaSalmonRestorationProject.Unpublished

Page22of27

TermPaper,CornellUniversity.Obtainedfromtheauthor.

Cairns,R.andStirling,A.(2014)‘“Maintainingplanetarysystems”or“concentratingglobalpower?”Highstakesin contending framings of climate geoengineering’, Global Environmental Change, 28, pp. 25–38. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.005.

Carr,W.,Mercer,A.andPalmer,C.(2012)‘PublicConcernsabouttheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement’,inPreston,C.J.(ed.)EngineeringtheClimate:TheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,pp.169–187.

Castree,N.(2005)Nature.Oxford,UK:Routledge.

CBC(2013)‘Ironman,TheFifthEstate,Season38,CanadianBroadcastingCorporation.’CanadianBroadcastingCorporation.March29,2013.

CHN(CounciloftheHaidaNation)(2004)Haidagwaiiyah’guudang[respectforthisplace]-HAIDALANDUSEVISION.Availableat:https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/lrmp/nanaimo/haidagwaii/docs/HLUVpublic.pdf.

Clingerman,F.(2014)‘Geoengineering,theology,andthemeaningofbeinghuman’,Zygon,49(1),pp.6–21.doi:10.1111/zygo.12072.

Cohen,B.I.(2012)TheUncertainFutureofFraserRiverSockeye.Volume1:TheSockeyeFishery,CommissionofInquiryintotheDeclineofSockeyeSalmonintheFraserRiver(Canada).Availableat:https://www.watershed-watch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/CohenCommissionFinalReport_Vol01_Full.pdf.

Coogan,J.andHerrington,N.(2011)‘Qmethodology:anoverview’,1(2),pp.24–28.

Corner,A.,Parkhill,K.,Pidgeon,N.andVaughan,N.E.(2013)‘Messingwithnature?Exploringpublicperceptionsof geoengineering in the UK’, Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp. 938–947. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.06.002.

Cresswell,T.(2004)Place:Ashortintroduction.Oxford,UK:BlackwellPublishing.

Cronin,W. (1995) ‘Introduction: InSearchofNature’, inCronin,W. (ed.)UncommonGround:RethinkingtheHumanPlaceinNature.London,UK:W.W.Norton&CompanyLtd.

Crutzen,P.J.(2002)‘GeologyofMankind’,Nature,415,p.23.

Crutzen,P.J.(2006)‘AlbedoEnhancementbyStratosphericSulfurInjections:AContributiontoResolveaPolicyDilemma?’,ClimaticChange,77(3),pp.211–219.doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.

Danielson, S., Webler, T. and Tuler, S. P. (2009) ‘Using Q Method for the Formative Evaluation of PublicParticipation Processes’, Society & Natural Resources. Routledge, 23(1), pp. 92–96. doi:10.1080/08941920802438626.

Donner,J.(2001)‘UsingQsortsinparticipatoryprocesses:Anintroductiontothemethodology’,inKrueger,M.,Casey,A.,Donner, J.,Kirsch,S.,andMaack, J.N. (eds)SocialAnalysis: SelectedToolsandTechniques,SocialDevelopmentPapers,36.WashingtonDC:WorldBank.

Donner, S. D. (2007) ‘Domain of the Gods: An editorial essay’, Climatic Change, 85, pp. 231–236. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9307-7.

Donner,S.D.(2011)‘Makingtheclimateapartofthehumanworld’,BulletinoftheAmericanMeteorologicalSociety,92(10),pp.1297–1302.doi:10.1175/2011BAMS3219.1.

Dowie, M. (2017) The Haida Gwaii Lesson: A Strategic Playbook for Indigenous Sovereignty. Oakland, CA:Inkshares.

Eden, S., Donaldson, A. and Walker, G. (2005) ‘Structuring subjectivities? Using Q methodology in humangeography’,Area,37(4),pp.413–422.doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00641.x.

Elliott,R.(1997)Fakingnature:theethicsofenvironmentalrestoration.London,UK:Routledge.

Fleming,J.R.(2007)‘TheClimateEngineers:PlayingGodtoSavethePlanet’,TheWilsonQuarterly,31(2),pp.46–60.

Fleming,J.R.(2010)Fixingthesky:thecheckeredhistoryofweatherandclimatecontrol.NewYork,NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Page23of27

Ford,J.D.,Vanderbilt,W.andBerrang-Ford,L.(2012)‘AuthorshipinIPCCAR5anditsimplicationsforcontent:ClimatechangeandIndigenouspopulationsinWGII’,ClimaticChange,113,pp.201–213.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0350-z.

Galarraga,M. and Szerszynski, B. (2012) ‘Making climates: Solar radiation and the ethics of fabrication’, inPreston,C..(ed.)EngineeringtheClimate:TheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,pp.221–235.

Gannon, K. E. (2015) ‘40 Million Salmon Might Be Wrong’ : Ecological Worldviews and GeoengineeringTechnologies: TheCaseof theHaida SalmonRestorationCorporation. A Thesis Submitted for theDegreeofDoctor of Philosophy. Department of Geography, School of Social Science and Public Policy, King’s CollegeLondon.Availableat:https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/40-million-salmon-might-be-wrong(b13ec7d3-e99d-4b4a-b6df-fdf6b4bbefa2).html.

Gill,I.(2009)Allthatwesayisours :GuujaawandthereawakeningoftheHaidaNation.Vancouver,BC:Douglas&McIntyre.

Guttman,L.(1954)‘Somenecessaryconditionsforcommon-factoranalysis’,Psychometrika,19(2),pp.149–161.doi:10.1007/BF02289162.

Hamilton,C.(2011a)‘EthicalAnxietiesAboutGeoengineering :Moralhazard,slipperyslopeandplayingGod’,PaperpresentedtoaconferenceoftheAustralianAcademyofScienceCanberra,27September2011.Availableat: http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs/Climatechange/Geo-politics/ethical_anxieties_about_geoengineering.pdf.

Hamilton, C. (2011b) ‘The clique that is trying to frame the global geoengineeringdebate’,TheGuardian, 5December. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/05/clique-geoengineering-debate.

Hamilton,C.(2013)Earthmasters.London,UK:YaleUniversityPress.

Hamme,R.C.,Webley,P.W.,Crawford,W.R.,Whitney,F.A.,Degrandpre,M.D.,Emerson,S.R.,Eriksen,C.C.,Giesbrecht,K.E.,Gower,J.F.R.,Kavanaugh,M.T.,Pea,M.A.,Sabine,C.L.,Batten,S.D.,Coogan,L.A.,Grundle,D.S.andLockwood,D. (2010) ‘Volcanicash fuelsanomalousplanktonbloom in subarcticnortheastPacific’,GeophysicalResearchLetters,37(19),pp.1–5.doi:10.1029/2010GL044629.

Hastrup, K. (2013) ‘Anticipating Nature: The Productive Uncertainty of ClimateModels’, in Hastrup, K. andSkrydstrup,M.(eds)TheSocialLifeofClimateChangeModels:AnticipatingNature.Oxon,UK:Routledge.

Hedlund-deWitt,A. (2012) ‘Exploringworldviewsandtheir relationships tosustainable lifestyles:Towardsanew conceptual and methodological approach’, Ecological Economics, 84, pp. 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.009.

Hedlund-deWitt,A.(2013)WorldviewsandtheTransformationtoSustainableSocieties:AnExplorationoftheCulturalandPsychologicalDimensionstoourGlobalEnvironmentalChallenges,PhDThesis.VrijeUniversiteit,Amsterdam,Netherlands.

Hedlund-de Witt, A. (2014) ‘Rethinking sustainable development: Considering how different worldviewsenvision “development” and “quality of life”’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 6, pp. 8310–8328. doi:10.3390/su6118310.

Howitt,R.,Havnen,O.andVeland,S. (2012) ‘NaturalandUnnaturalDisasters:RespondingwithRespect forIndigenous Rights and Knowledges’, Geographical Research, 50(1), pp. 47–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2011.00709.x.

Howitt,R.andSuchet-Pearson,S.(2006)‘Rethinkingthebuildingblocks:Ontologicalpluralismandtheideaof“management”’,GeografiskaAnnaler,SeriesB:HumanGeography,88B(3),pp.323–335.doi:10.1111/j.1468-0459.2006.00225.x.

Hulme, M. (2009) Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction andOpportunity.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hulme,M.(2014)CanScienceFixClimateChange?ACaseAgainstClimateEngineering.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.

Page24of27

Hulme,M.andMahony,M.(2010)‘Climatechange:WhatdoweknowabouttheIPCC?’,ProgressinPhysicalGeography,34(5),pp.705–718.doi:10.1177/0309133310373719.

Hume,M. (2012) ‘Ocean fertilizationexperimentalarmsmarinescientists’,TheGlobeandMail,19October.Availableat:https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ocean-fertilization-experiment-alarms-marine-scientists/article4625695/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&.

Inglehart, R. (1997)Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43Societies.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

IPCC (2014)ClimateChange2014: Synthesis Report. ContributionofWorkingGroups I, II and III to the FifthAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange,[CoreWritingTeam,R.K.PachauriandL.A.Meyer(eds.)].Geneva,Switzerland:IPCC.

Jasanoff, S. (2010) ‘A New Climate for Society’, Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), pp. 233–253. doi:10.1177/0263276409361497.

Jasanoff,S.andKim,S.H. (2009) ‘Containingtheatom:Sociotechnical imaginariesandnuclearpower intheUnitedStatesandSouthKorea’,Minerva,47,pp.119–146.doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.

Kaiser,H.F.(1960)‘TheApplicationofElectronicComputerstoFactorAnalysis’,EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement.SAGEPublicationsInc,20(1),pp.141–151.doi:10.1177/001316446002000116.

Kintisch,E.(2010)HackthePlanet.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.

Langmann,B.,Zakšek,K.,Hort,M.andDuggen,S.(2010)‘Volcanicashasfertiliserforthesurfaceocean’,Atmos.Chem.Phys.CopernicusPublications,10(8),pp.3891–3899.doi:10.5194/acp-10-3891-2010.

Leopold,A.(1986)GameManagement.Madison,WI:UniversityofWisconsinPress.

Livingstone,D.N. (2003)Putting Science in its Place:Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. London,UK: TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Lukacs,M.(2012)‘World’sbiggestgeoengineeringexperiment“violates”UNrules’,TheGuardian,15October,pp. 1–3. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering.

Lynas,M.(2011)TheGodSpecies:HowHumansReallyCanSavethePlanet.London,UK:HarperCollins.

Macnaghten,P.andSzerszynski,B.(2013)‘LivingtheGlobalSocialExperiment:Ananalysisofpublicdiscourseonsolarradiationmanagementanditsimplicationsforgovernance’,GlobalEnvironmentalChange,23(2),pp.465–474.doi:10.1063/1.2756072.

Macnaghten,P.andUrry,J.(1998)Contestednatures.London,UK:Sage.

Mamadouh, V. (1999) ‘Grid-group cultural theory: an introduction’, GeoJournal, 47(3), pp. 395–409. doi:10.1023/A:1007024008646.

Marcus,G.E.(1995)‘Ethnographyin/oftheWorldSystem:TheEmergenceofMulti-SitedEthnography’,AnnualReviewofAnthropology,24,pp.95–117.

Marris,E.(2011)RambunctiousGarden:SavingNatureinaPost-WildWorld.NewYork,NY:Bloomsbury.

May,E.(1990)ParadiseWon:TheStruggleforSouthMoresby.Toronto,ON:McClelland&StewartInc.

McKibben, B. (2003) The End of Nature: Humanity, Climate Change and the Natural World. London, UK:Bloomsbury.

McKinnell,S.(2013)‘ChallengesfortheKasatoshivolcanohypothesisasthecauseofalargereturnofsockeyesalmon(Oncorhynchusnerka)totheFraserRiverin2010’,FisheriesOceanography.WileyOnlineLibrary,22(4),pp.337–344.doi:10.1111/fog.12023.

McKnight,Z.(2013)‘B.C.companyatcentreofirondumpingscandalstandsbyitsconvictions’,VancouverSun,9 April. Available at:http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/company+centre+iron+dumping+scandal+stands+convictions/8860731/story.html.

Milman,O.,Smith,D.andCarrington,D.(2017)‘DonaldTrumpconfirmsUSwillquitParisclimateagreement’,

Page25of27

The Guardian, 1 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-confirms-us-will-quit-paris-climate-deal.

Monbiot,G.(2013)Feral:Searchingforenchantmentonthefrontiersofrewilding.London,UK:PenguinBooks.

Nerlich,B.andJaspal,R.(2012)‘MetaphorsWeDieBy?Geoengineering,Metaphors,andtheArgumentFromCatastrophe’,MetaphorandSymbol,27(2),pp.131–147.doi:10.1080/10926488.2012.665795.

O’Brien,K.L.(2009)‘Dovaluessubjectivelydefinethelimitstoclimatechangeadaptation?’,inAdger,W.N.,Lorenzoni,I.,andO’Brien,K.L.(eds)AdaptingtoClimateChange-Thresholds,Values,Governance.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.164–180.doi:10.1017/CBO9780511596667.011.

Olwig,K.(1996)‘Nature:mappingtheghostlytracesofaconcept’,inEarle,C.,Matthewson,K.,andKenzer,M.(eds)ConceptsinHumanGeography.MD:Rowman&Littlefield.

P.J.Crutzen(2002)‘The“anthropocene”’,J.Phys.IVFrance,12(10),pp.1–5.doi:10.1051/jp4:20020447.

Parsons,T.R.andWhitney,F.A.(2012)‘DidvolcanicashfromMt.Kasatoshiin2008contributetoaphenomenalincreaseinFraserRiversockeyesalmon(Oncorhynchusnerka)in2010?’,FisheriesOceanography,21,pp.374–377.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2419.2012.00630.x.

Pearson,A.(2013)‘LetteraddressedtotheOldMassettBandCouncil.’May2.[Personalcommunication].

Porter,K.E.andHulme,M.(2013)‘TheemergenceofthegeoengineeringdebateintheUKprintmedia:Aframeanalysis’,GeographicalJournal,179(4),pp.342–355.doi:10.1111/geoj.12003.

Preston,C.J.(2012)‘BeyondtheEndofNature:SRMandTwoTalesofArtificityfortheAnthropocene’,Ethics,Policy&Environment,15(2),pp.188–201.doi:10.1080/21550085.2012.685571.

Ramachandran,A.(2017)‘HarvardResearchersLaunchSolarGeoengineeringMoonshot’,TheHarvardCrimson,17April,pp.4–9.Availableat:http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/4/17/solar-geoengineering-program-launch/.

RoyalSociety(2009)GeoengineeringtheClimate:Science,governanceanduncertainty.London,UK.Availableat:https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf.

Russill,C.andNyssa,Z.(2009)‘Thetippingpointtrendinclimatechangecommunication’,GlobalEnvironmentalChange,19(3),pp.336–344.doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.001.

Sandler,R.L.(2012)‘SolarRadiationManagementandtheNonhumanSpecies’,inPreston,C.(ed.)EngineeringtheClimate:TheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,pp.95–109.

Sikka,T. (2012) ‘Acriticaldiscourseanalysisofgeoengineeringadvocacy’,CriticalDiscourseStudies,9(2),pp.163–175.doi:10.1080/17405904.2012.656377.

Simmons,I.G.(1993)InterpretingNature:Culturalconstructionsoftheenvironment.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Soper,K.(1995)WhatisNature?Oxford,UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

Steffen,W.,Crutzen,J.andMcNeill,J.R.(2007)‘TheAnthropocene:arehumansnowoverwhelmingthegreatforcesofNature?’,Ambio,36(8),pp.614–621.doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.

Stenner,P.andStaintonRogers,R.(2004)‘QMethodologyandqualiquantology:theexampleofdiscriminatingbetweenemotions’,inTodd,Z.,Nerlich,B.,McKeown,S.,andClarke,D.D.(eds)MixingMethodsinPsychology.Theintegrationofqualitativeandquantitativemethodsintheoryandpractice.NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress,pp.101–117.doi:10.4324/9780203645727.

Stephenson,B.Y.W.(1936)‘TheInvertedFactorTechnique’,BritishJournalofPsychology,26(4),pp.344–361.

Stephenson, W. (1965) ‘Perspectives in Psychology: XXIII Definition of Opinion, Attitude and Belief’, ThePsychologicalRecord,15(2),pp.281–288.doi:10.1007/BF03393596.

Stilgoe, J. (2013) ‘Why has geoengineering been legitimised by the IPCC ?’, The Guardian, 27 September.Availableat:https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/sep/27/science-policy1.

Stirling,A.(2008)‘“Openingup”and“closingdown”:Power,participation,andpluralisminthesocialappraisaloftechnology’,Science,Technology&HumanValues,33(2),pp.262–294.doi:10.1177/0162243907311265.

Page26of27

Suzuki, D. (2012) ‘Monkeying around with oceans is just stupid’, The Province, 31 October. Available at:http://theprovince.com/opinion/david-suzuki-monkeying-around-with-oceans-is-just-stupid.

Taylor,C.(1989)SourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Thornberg, R. (2012) ‘InformedGroundedTheory’,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), pp.243–259.doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.581686.

Tollefson,J.(2017)‘Plankton-boostingproject’,Nature,545(25May2017),pp.393–394.

Tsing,A.L.(2004)Friction:AnEthnographyofGlobalConnection.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Vaughan,N.E.andLenton,T.M.(2011)‘Areviewofclimategeoengineeringproposals’,ClimaticChange,109,pp.745–790.doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7.

Watts, S. and Stenner, P. (2005) ‘Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation’, QualitativeResearchinPsychology,2,pp.67–91.doi:10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.

Watts,S.andStenner,P.(2012)DoingQMethodologicalResearch:TheoryMethodandInterpretation.London,UK:Sage.

Webler, T., Danielson, S. and Tuler, S. (2007) Guidance on the Use of Q Method for Evaluation of PublicInvolvement Programs at Contaminated Sites. Greenfield,MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.Availableat:http://seri-us.org/sites/default/files/QMethodGuidanceSuperfund.pdf.

Webler,T.,Danielson,S.andTuler,S. (2009)UsingQMethodtoRevealSocialPerspectives inEnvironmentalResearch, Social and Environmental Research. Greenfield,MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute.Availableat:http://www.seri-us.org/pubs/Qprimer.pdf.

White,A.[SGaanaJaad](2013)‘March17&23,2011HSRCMeetingsSummary’,inOpinion:OldMassettVillageCouncilʼsHaidaSalmonRestorationCorporationʼsHaidaSalmonRestorationProject—IronFertilizationProject.SubmissiontoOldMassettVillageCouncil.November13,2013.Obtainedfromauthor.

Whyte, K. P. (2012) ‘Indigenous People’s, Solar RadiationManagement and Consent’, in Preston, C. J. (ed.)EngineeringtheClimate:TheEthicsofSolarRadiationManagement.Plymouth,UK:LexingtonBooks,pp.66–77.

DeWitt,A.andHedlund,N.(2017)‘TowardsanIntegrativeEcologyofWorldviews:ReflexiveCommunicativeAction forClimateSolutions’, inMickey,S.,Kelly,S.,andRobbert,A. (eds)TheVarietyof IntegralEcologies:Nature,CultureandKnowledgeinthePlanetaryEra.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,pp.305–344.

DeWitt,A.,Osseweijer,P.andPierce,R.(2017)‘Understandingpublicperceptionsofbiotechnologythroughthe“Integrative Worldview Framework”’, Public Understanding of Science, 26(1), pp. 70–88. doi:10.1177/0963662515592364.

Yusoff,K.(2013)‘Thegeoengine:Geoengineeringandthegeopoliticsofplanetarymodification’,EnvironmentandPlanningA,45,pp.2799–2808.doi:10.1068/a45645.

Page27of27

AppendixConductingandanalysingtheQ-sortsQ-Methodologydoesnotemploylargenumbersofparticipants.InstatisticaltermsparticipantsarethevariablesandQconventiondenotesthat,ataminimum,theanalysismusthaveasmallernumberofQ-participantsthanQ-statements(WattsandStenner,2012);indeedaratioof1:3isoftenadvocated(Webleretal.,2007).Diversityof opinion should be maximized among the participants, since, theoretically, participants are selected torepresentthebreadthofopinioninthepopulation,ratherthanthedistributionofbeliefs(Brown,1980).Theethnographicphaseoftheresearchallowedustopurposivelysampleatotalof26participantswhowebelievedwouldbothadduniqueperspectivestothestudyandwhoweresufficientlyengagedwiththesubjecttodosoeffectively4.MostoftheQ-sortswereconductedinperson,usingaprinteddistributionchartandnumberedQ-cards.Thisallowedsupportingqualitativedatatobeeasilycollectedalongsidethesortingprocess.ThreeoftheparticipantsconductedtheirQ-sorts throughanonlineapplicationdevelopedusingthesoftwareFlashQ5.Free,purpose-builtQ-software,PQMethodwasusedtoruntheby-personfactoranalysisandcentroidfactoranalysiswasusedto extract factors. Varimax rotation, a facility available within PQMethod, was used to produce the mostorthogonal (uncorrelated) factors possible. Centroid factor analysis does not resolve itself into a singleacceptablefactoranalyticsolutionandinsteadresearchersmustmakedecisionsaboutwhichfactorstoretainandrotate.Toberetained,factorshadtomeetsomebasicstatisticalcriteria(e.g.Guttman,1954;Kaiser,1960)andaccountforareasonableportionofthestudyvariance.But,mostimportantly,thesolutionhadtomakegood‘sense’ofthedata(CooganandHerrington,2011;WattsandStenner,2012).Factorloadingsproducedfollowingrotationmeasuredaparticipant’saffinitytoafactor.Thoseparticipantsthathadstatisticallysignificantfactorloadingswere‘flagged’inPQMethodandusedintheconstructionoffactorestimates.Tocalculatetheseestimates,thecontributionofeachofthestatisticallysignificantsortstoafactorestimate isweightedaccordingto its factor loading.Topermitcross-factorcomparison,PQMethodconvertsthesetotalweightedscoresintostandardizedz-scores,fromwhichexemplifyingQ-sortswereproduced.Takingthe form of a single Q-sort, this ‘ideal-typical’ sort is presented in the array format inwhich the datawasoriginallycollected.

4 Notably the literacy requirement of this design prevented at least one otherwise willing and suitable potential participant fromparticipating.5Twooftheserespondentsparticipatedinface-to-faceinterviewsatotherpointsduringtheresearch.