climate law 5 (2015) 105-110 © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 | doi 10.1163/18786561-00504001 brill.com/clla Introduction to the Special Issue: Climate Engineering Law William C. G. Burns and Simon Nicholson Guest-Editors of the Special Issue and Co-Directors, Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, American University, School of International Service At the time of the publication of this volume, all eyes are turned towards Paris and the unfccc’s cop 21 in anticipation of a new agreement to address cli- mate change. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that this agreement will not constitute a magic bullet. Global average temperatures are projected to increase by 2.6°C by 2100 and reach 3.5°C above pre-industrial levels after 2100, even if the most optimistic outcomes from the conference are realized. The seriousness of temperature increases of this magnitude lies behind the impetus for increasing discussion of a suite of technological options designed to exert dramatic effects on the globe’s environment. These options are known collectively as climate engineering. Largely out of desperation and despair, cli- mate engineering has moved from the realm of taboo to one more policy pre- scription. Yet, as all of the articles in this issue emphasize, it is a policy prescription not to be embraced lightly given the profound implications that it could pose for human institutions and natural ecosystems. Climate engineering technologies are generally divided into two categories: solar radiation management (srm) approaches, which focus on ‘reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by Earth by an amount sufficient to offset the increased trapping of infrared radiation by rising levels of greenhouse gases’, and carbon dioxide removal (cdr) approaches, which ‘seek to reduce co2 levels in the atmosphere, facilitating the escape of more outgoing long- wave solar radiation, thus exerting a cooling effect’.1 Much of the early focus of climate engineering research was on technologi- cal feasibility and modelling of potential impacts. However, in more recent years, there has been increasing attention to governance issues and the role of 1 William C. G. Burns and Jane A. Flegal, ‘Climate Geoengineering and the Role of Public Deliberation: A Critique of the National Academy of Science’s Recommendations on Public Participation’, this issue, p. 257.