Solar Radiation Modification is risky, but so is rejecting it: A call for balanced research
Geoengineering News
Abstract
As it is increasingly uncertain whether humanity can limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) has been suggested as a potential temporary complement to mitigation. While no replacement for mitigation, evidence to date suggests that some SRM methods could contribute to reducing climate risks and would be technically feasible. But such interventions would also pose environmental risks and unprecedented governance challenges. The risks of SRM must be carefully weighed against those of climate change without SRM. Currently, both types of risks are not sufficiently understood to assess whether SRM could be largely beneficial. Given the already serious impacts of climate change and the possibility that pressure from their increasing severity will trigger rash decisions, we argue that timely, careful investigation and deliberation on SRM is a safer path than wilful ignorance. A framework of ethical guidelines and regulation can help limit potential risks from SRM research.
Robert Tulip
This paper includes the following valuable principles that inform how to advocate for SRM. My comments are in red.
Following a number of scholars who have worked on moral frameworks for SRM (17; 14), we propose the following broad principles: _
- Mitigation (including removals) and adaptation need to be the primary focus of climate policy. True for the long term but not for the short term. Also, the use of ‘mitigation’ as a synonym for emission reduction is scientifically incorrect and should be discouraged. SRM will do much more to mitigate climate change than decarbonisation will.
- SRM should at most serve as an addition to reducing greenhouse gas concentrations. SRM will be useful for long term regulation and management of the climate. As well, SRM will be needed well before GHGs start to go down. The phrase “at most serve as an addition” downplays the central climate role of albedo and its position as the most tractable lever to deliver cooling.
- Knowledge and implementation of SRM must be administered in the public interest. This entails that the provision of SRM is organised by a globally legitimised body, and not based on private interests. _ The Bretton Woods Institutions, the IMF and World Bank, provide a useful model for establishing an international climate organisation tasked to increase albedo.
- Legitimate governance processes must be adhered to, and societal values such as justice and equality must be central when considering the role SRM research can play in lessening the threat of climate change. _ Societal values such as justice and equality must be important, but political perceptions in these areas carry high risk of derailing a rigorous technical focus on albedo enhancement. An international agency tasked to manage SRM can require justice and equality in its sphere of operation, but not beyond it.
- Any decision about deployment should be taken on the basis of broad public participation. Special emphasis should be placed on underrepresented and vulnerable communities, such as the Global South and Indigenous Peoples. _ This is correct. I believe public opinion can readily be swayed to support solar geoengineering in light of the impossibility of the IPCC’s latest call in the AR6 Synthesis Report to nearly halve emissions by 2030.
- The research process should be transparent, reflective, and cooperative (also on the international level), and provide ample space for offramps, in case certain findings point towards undesirable outcomes of SRM deployment. _ Mention of offramps is important, but the reality is that benefits of solar geoengineering, implemented with sound governance, should vastly overwhelm possible risks. Incremental deployment beginning at small scale and volume can quantify risks and benefits.
- SRM research must aim to create a comprehensive body of knowledge covering environmental, technical, political, societal and ethical sciences and properly linking and combining these domains. _ Knowledge management is essential but easily neglected.
- A solid framework for the governance of SRM should be in place before implementation is seriously considered. This entails engaging in research and consultations on governance parallel to studying the environmental and technological aspects of SRM. The Bretton Woods Institutions offer governance models that could be studied for international management of SRM. More than consultation, advocacy is needed to rapidly establish governance systems for SRM.
Regards
Robert Tulip
--
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/CAHJsh9-PtwYnkoQ_PGiR0ftocfB%3DSxP9UjT0JPNhq97Afm2okA%40mail.gmail.com.
Morgan Goodwin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/073401d96003%248d16cb70%24a7446250%24%40yahoo.com.au.
 | Morgan Goodwin Executive Director Planetary Sunshade Foundation m/ 530-562-7176 |