Governing Climate Engineering: A Proposal for Immediate Governance of Solar Radiation Management

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3954

Abstract

Solar radiation management (SRM) technologies would reflect a small amount of incoming solar radiation back into space before the radiation can warm the planet. Although SRM may emerge as a useful component of a global response to climate change, there is also good reason for caution. In June 2017, the Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance released a policy report, “Governing Solar Radiation Management”, which developed a set of objectives to govern SRM in the near-term future: (1) keep mitigation and adaptation first; (2) thoroughly and transparently evaluate risks, burdens, and benefits; (3) enable responsible knowledge creation; and (4) ensure robust governance before any consideration of deployment. To advance the governance objectives identified above, the working group developed twelve recommendations, grouped into three clusters: (1) create politically legitimate deliberative bodies; (2) leverage existing institutions; and (3) make research transparent and accountable. This communication discusses the rationale behind each cluster and elaborates on a subset of the recommendations from each cluster. 

[Ronal Larson]

Andrew and list

1.    Thanks for your https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/14/3954 cite below - this for a 9 page, non-fee, 4-day old paper that is of direct interest to SRM (Geo without CDR).  I especially like that it was written by experts on governance (but initially not on SRM), who were divided on SRM itself, and had many discussions on the topic over multiple years.  

I find nothing wrong with any part of the paper.   I hope the same group can continue on with governing CDR (the other part of Geoengineering).  Comparing the governance ideas of SRM with those for CDR should help both groups - as well as policymakers.  I would guess that CDR could now take much less than half the time as for SRM, even with CDR's much broader array of options.

This appears to have been conducted very much like a jury deliberation - with proponents NOT involved in the deliberations.  I believe this approach will give better results in most cross comparisons.

2.    Here is a short outline.  This is probably less than about 1% of the article - intended only to encourage a full read and for use by other technologies or groups of technologies (especially CDR).

 Abstract: (see below)

1. Introduction ……... The working group met for five deliberative workshops between March 2016 and February 2018. The chief findings of the working group’s report are detailed below. All recommendations presented in this article are derived from the working group report.

 2. Background on the Process 

 3. Governance Objectives

3.1. Objective I—Keep Mitigation and Adaptation First 

3.2. Objective II—Thoroughly and Transparently Evaluate Risks, Burdens, and Benefits 

3.3. Objective III—Enable Responsible Knowledge Creation 

3.4. Objective IV—Ensure Robust Governance Before any Consideration of Deployment 

4. Recommendations: Concrete Near-Term Governance Steps 

  Cluster #1: Create Politically Legitimate Deliberative Bodies:    

    1 Establish a World Commission on SRM;    

    2 Establish a Global Forum for Stakeholder Dialogue 

  Cluster #2: Leverage Existing Institutions 

    3 Strengthen cooperation between international organizations;    

    4 Assess and improve capacities for regional coordination and conflict resolution;

    5 Continue ongoing assessment role for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…..;   

    6 Develop foresight capabilities 

  Cluster #3: Make Research Transparent and Accountable 

    7 Report on SRM research and development activities in the Paris Agreement….;   

    8 Institutionalize codes of conduct for responsible SRM research; 

    9 Ensure that ongoing research includes international and interdisciplinary collaboration;   

   10 Clarify funding streams

   11 Develop a publicly accessible clearinghouse;    

   12 Develop best practices for risk and impact assessments

5. Conclusions The working group argues that SRM governance should begin now. Some members see SRM development as desirable; some as potentially dangerous. Whatever the perspective, governance will be required to prompt the careful deliberation and oversight needed to make decisions about SRM in the societal interest. The working group’s recommendations establish essential rules and institutional arrangements for near-term understanding and guidance of SRM research, they also begin building the scaffolding for effective long-term governance. 

3.   In sum,  I find all parts of this reasonable for the SRM part of Geo.  The only recommendation I have so far is to hope they can tie CDR into their recommendations.

     I will forward this to both the Google CDR and Yahoo Biochar lists  - with separate notes pertinent to each.   For example, the “ before” part of their Objective 4 seems too late for most of CDR and certainly for biochar..   

Ron

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-068BnCsGtuE3ojzxAjz1272iSaLouXfVG5txsqTm%3Db9kg%40mail.gmail.com.