Royal Society report on SRM

[H simmens]

This report was just released today. Based upon reading the briefing note and the conclusions it appears that the report doesn’t either break new ground nor take a position on the use of SRM. 

I am not aware whether this report describes any evolution in the analysis and conclusions reached in their path breaking 2009 report. 

Herb

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/solar-radiation-modification/solar-radiation-modification-policy-briefing.pdf

[Robert Chris]

Hi Herb

I think you may have unrealistic expectations of this report.  This is a bunch of scientists reporting on the science, both physical and social.  They are following a long-established practice of not encroaching on policy decisions.  The bottom line here is that they do not take it upon themselves to say whether or not SRM is necessary, that's a policymakers' decision.

It is not for scientists to opine on how much climate chaos policymakers consider worth risking rather than incurring the risks associated with doing SRM.  In this context it is necessary to remember that from a policymaker's perspective these latter risks are a combination of the direct risks associated with doing the SRM and the probably more significant political co-risks to their hold on power.

From a scientific perspective I think the report is pretty balanced and offers many comments about the ways in which SRM could lessen the harms from global warming.

Regards

RobertC

---

From: healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of H simmens <hsim...@gmail.com>
Sent: 05 November 2025 10:57
To: healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HPAC] Royal Society report on SRM

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4189ED7D-B8F1-444E-9EE8-247EB12A3AD4%40gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Robert,

I think that SOME BODY (I intentionally am using those two words rather than one)  with a high degree of knowledge and authority needs to provide potential decision makers with scenarios that can both qualify and quantify the consequences of deploying or not deploying SRM in certain specified timelines. 

This would also include an analysis of the confidence levels of the recommendations as for example the IPCC reports do. 

The report would not include a specific recommendation to deploy or not. 

 I have yet to see anyone undertake that kind of analysis except for one paper that I saw a few years ago that I cannot locate. 

This kind of analysis is appropriately within the purview and responsibilities of scientists working in conjunction with policy analysts, risk management specialists and others who can provide insight from the broadest possible array of disciplines and perspectives. 

I don’t know if you were in the auditorium in Cambridge this summer when one of the speakers indicated that her organization is in support of research but not deployment.  I then asked my ‘At what Point’ question to her and to those in the audience. 

Which is what are the specific qualitative and quantitative criteria that could provide a guide to deployment decisions. (these could include temperatures, tipping point activations, ecosystem collapse, derailment risk escalation, numbers of people in danger of being severely harmed and so forth.)

The speaker just as I expected avoided answering my question, nor did anyone else in the auditorium attempt to answer my question publicly or privately. 

What is urgently needed is an informed and structured process, ideally sponsored by key  international or national entities and with broad participation from the global south to begin to answer that critical question. 

Given the prestige and previous reports issued by the Royal Society I remain disappointed that they apparently did not use the opportunity of this report to either provide some suggested criteria or at least to advocate that SRM decision-making criteria should be vigorously discussed by the world community. 

Who will step up to do that and when? And will it already be too late? 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Nov 5, 2025, at 11:42 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/VI1P194MB0398837F1A8EBF6AABD3F6ACFCC5A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Robert C--

What we did in a report from an international panel of scientists to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development is to indicate to them that if they wanted to get to some situation (e.g., allow for sustainable development to be successful, etc.), this such and such was necessary and that not doing this would lead to undesired outcomes. That report was https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CC%20Confronting%20Climate%20Change%20Exec%20Summ.pdf

It is this type of approach that  I think is the responsibility of we scientists (and experts). Failing to directly put the responsibility on decision-makers I think needs to be avoided. We can explain via various scenarios and that is fine, but I think we also need to explain what is needed (and what options there are) to get to certain outcomes.

Best, Mike

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/VI1P194MB0398837F1A8EBF6AABD3F6ACFCC5A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[John Nissen]

Hi Robert C,

You may have hit the nail on the head, with your comment that the political risk of losing power is greater than the physical risk of deploying SRM.  This is especially so when the latter risk may be minimal.  So the people with power, e.g. the IPCC people who advocate an emissions only strategy (ERA), will downplay SRM or even have it taboo, because they fear that advocating SRM would jeopardise their power, influence and career prospects.  We need to find people who are not bogged down with an ERA commitment and will listen to our common-sense reasoning.

This email has crossed with Herb's response, but I stand by the above.  It turns out that the Royal Society is too embroiled in the ERA strategy to give a fair hearing to requests for emergency SAI.  In their landmark report of 2009, they failed to address the Arctic problem, despite my pleas to the team leader, (now Sir) John Shepherd.  He told me, on the occasion of the report's launch: "You are going to be disappointed".  Indeed, I was.  They also put SAI in the "high risk" category, which has seriously misled a lot of us.

And I agree with Mike (just posting) that scientists can't just leave it to politicians to make up their minds.  The aim of the Arctic Emergency Report Card is to show to policy-makers that their top priority on the climate should be the emergency deployment of SAI to lower the Arctic temperature and start refreezing the Arctic.  If this is not done promptly, they will carry some of the blame when things go pear-shaped, jeopardising our own future but especially the future of the young people of today.  History (if there are any historians left) will not look kindly on them.

Cheers, John

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/VI1P194MB0398837F1A8EBF6AABD3F6ACFCC5A%40VI1P194MB0398.EURP194.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Chris Vivian]

John,

 

It’s not true that the IPCC advocate an emissions only strategy. They clearly said in AR6 that CDR was essential as well! I assume they also endorse adaptation.

 

Chris.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CACS_FxoGzfJkwyu_mtffUxPBcFD9g1z5v%2B8WhF2t%2BL9HAOaHXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

IPCC is a review of selected OLD published documents, so they can’t possibly reflect the opinions of their authors today, since all honest scientists change their opinions as new facts arise.  

 

I suspect many, if not most, IPCC authors from the scientific minority would support SLR research into potential management if you asked them today.

 

It’s worth noting that IPCC panelists are appointed by governments, so most are in fact paid fossil fuel industry consultants to governments, and NOT research scientists, and their opinions NEVER change no matter what the facts say.

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Biorock Technology Inc., Blue Regeneration SL

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Phone: (1) 857-523-0807 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

https://www.routledge.com/Geotherapy-Innovative-Methods-of-Soil-Fertility-Restoration-Carbon-Sequestration-and-Reversing-CO2-Increase/Goreau-Larson-Campe/p/book/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/oa-edit/10.1201/b14314/innovative-methods-marine-ecosystem-restoration-robert-kent-trench-thomas-goreau

 

On the Nature of Things: The Scientific Photography of Fritz Goro

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer

 

“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips

 

“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies” Noam Chomsky

 

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/030e01dc4f35%2455753d40%24005fb7c0%24%40btinternet.com.

[John Nissen]

Hi Tom,

A further reason for IPCC's collective taboo on SRM deployment is that they don't want to admit, even indirectly, that their remit, "to avoid dangerous anthropogenic warming", has failed. Deployment of SRM would be seen as an admission of failure.  Some IPCC scientists may admit to favouring SRM research, but not to near-term deployment and certainly not to emergency deployment as warranted by the tipping point situation - and corals.

You are right that the IPCC has been hijacked by the fossil fuel industry.  It is a zero sum game: fossil fuel interests versus those who want everyone to reduce their CO2 emissions.  The IPCC is now heavily weighted against any significant reduction in CO2 emissions.  And the fossil fuel industry is on the side of those who want to exploit an Arctic with less ice cover: principally for extraction of resources and for transport on ships.

SRM is not a zero sum game: it is more like a win-win-win situation.  To generalise: everyone benefits from the avoidance of tipping element catastrophe; everyone benefits from climate change reversal; and everyone benefits from a slower sea level rise.

Chris, it is good to know that CDR is now endorsed by the IPCC; but there is little mention of the scale required to reduce GHG heating ("climate forcing") to zero (relative to CO2 and CO2e baseline of 280 ppm).  Our calculations suggest it needs to be at a removal rate approximately double the current rate of emissions.  Emissions for 2024 approached 38 GtCO2, so double that for CDR is 76 GtCO2 removal per year.  If sustained for 30 years this is 2280 GtCO2 removed, which I reckon is about the amount of CO2 we've added since 1900.

In PRAG we have proposed an intercept strategy whereby CDR is ramped up to a level to reach 380 ppm CO2e (the level in 1980) such that SAI could be phased out.  The PRAG 50-year plan would have this by 2075.  It is shown in our "temperature trends and targets" diagram attached; see red curve.  2075 would mark a return to the late Holocene conditions which we effectively left in 1980 at 0.5C when various tipping points/elements were activated and acceleration away from the Holocene started.  It is proposed to attach this diagram to our Arctic Emergency Report Card.

Cheers, John