My plea regarding UNEA-6
63 views
Skip to first unread message
Matthias Honegger
Feb 21, 2024, 12:58:59 AM2/21/24
to geoengineering
Dear 'Geoengineering google group' subscribers
I worryingly see the two ends of a spectrum on SRM views agree that a UNEP expert/working group would not be necessary and several government representatives in Nairobi are echoing similar lukewarm sentiments. This is despite all Parties without fail emphasising the importance of global inclusivity and transparency.
It seems that folks have not yet truly realized how foundational to any global decisionmaking it is to have multilateral spaces that facilitate deliberative learning about the complex issues associated with SRM – at the science-policy interface. Decisionmakers north and south, east and west will need access to the same opportunities for scientific, ethical and broader synthesis information. Empowering everyone around the UN table equally to ask questions that may be partly answered by scientific insights and partly through the conversations around them is essential for legitimate and effective global decisions on this.
The working group proposed via draft resolution tabled for UNEA-6 would be a crucial step towards this. Having observed this space for 12 years, it is in my personal view absolutely essential that this proposal be given the chance to prove itself – whether folks seek to prevent SRM use or see a future in which it might be considered.
The international community needs time – we all need time – to start figuring out the questions posed by increasingly unsettling climate outlooks and potential SRM interventions. This is not something that can be dealt with unilaterally. Neither if you want to halt SRM in its tracks nor if you want to see SRM emerge.
If those who want to control the outcome argue for addressing the topic elsewhere because they suspect having greater control there, the result will be that the issue continues its existence as a policy object and the worst possibility becomes increasingly true: No governance and no deliberation.
I worryingly see the two ends of a spectrum on SRM views agree that a UNEP expert/working group would not be necessary and several government representatives in Nairobi are echoing similar lukewarm sentiments. This is despite all Parties without fail emphasising the importance of global inclusivity and transparency.
It seems that folks have not yet truly realized how foundational to any global decisionmaking it is to have multilateral spaces that facilitate deliberative learning about the complex issues associated with SRM – at the science-policy interface. Decisionmakers north and south, east and west will need access to the same opportunities for scientific, ethical and broader synthesis information. Empowering everyone around the UN table equally to ask questions that may be partly answered by scientific insights and partly through the conversations around them is essential for legitimate and effective global decisions on this.
The working group proposed via draft resolution tabled for UNEA-6 would be a crucial step towards this. Having observed this space for 12 years, it is in my personal view absolutely essential that this proposal be given the chance to prove itself – whether folks seek to prevent SRM use or see a future in which it might be considered.
The international community needs time – we all need time – to start figuring out the questions posed by increasingly unsettling climate outlooks and potential SRM interventions. This is not something that can be dealt with unilaterally. Neither if you want to halt SRM in its tracks nor if you want to see SRM emerge.
If those who want to control the outcome argue for addressing the topic elsewhere because they suspect having greater control there, the result will be that the issue continues its existence as a policy object and the worst possibility becomes increasingly true: No governance and no deliberation.
Do not decline a conversation that you will regret shutting down for wanting to control the outcome. UNEP is an important place to start building a shared understanding of what we are even dealing with.
Finally, WCRP is no alternative but a complement to UNEP work on SRM. WCRP is crucial to help structure research collaborative efforts. But work under UNEP would serve a different purpose: offering synthesis of the science, ethical and broader aspects in keeping with the needs of policy actors, answering directly the Parties (government representatives).
Matthias
Matthias
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages