Solar geoengineering research needs formal global debate
Geoeng Info
It is true that solar radiation modification (SRM) would require effective global governance that currently does not exist (see F. Biermann Nature 595, 30; 2021). It is for precisely this reason that meaningful conversations at the global level are needed on how, if at all, such frameworks could be put in place; if and how research might be governed; and whether or not SRM should be used. Silencing all formal debate piles risk upon risk, in my view.
SRM is not a substitute for mitigation. At best, it could supplement those efforts while temporarily cooling the planet — and possibly staving off potential planetary tipping points. The longer we take to radically slash emissions, the greater the possibility that the world might need to consider SRM. Of course, SRM would also generate new risks. There are no risk-free options. We need to weigh the risks of our present paths with those from the potential use of SRM.
The world needs a forum — such as the United Nations — where all voices and views can be expressed. There, the world should debate, and then it could decide on a moratorium on further research, or it could do the opposite. We need these conversations now.
The longer we delay, the greater the risk of hasty, ungoverned actions or decisions.
COMPETING INTERESTS
J.P. is executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative, whose main mission is to address issues related to the governance of solar radiation modification. The content and eventual publication of this article, however, present no competing interests — neither financial nor any other.