UNEP is smothering action on SRM without recognising the increasing loss of global cloud albedo
Clive Elsworth
Many of you will already the cognizant of what follows, but I still think it’s worth highlighting.
It seems to me that the UNEP is smothering action on SRM without recognising the loss of cloud albedo from:
- Shipping, since the IMO 2020 rules came into effect,
- Climate warming, as a strong feedback, as highlighted by Hansen in his most recent communication: https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2026/2026GlobalTemperature.2026.06.12.pdf
Here’s what Deepseek answered to three questions from me:
Q1. Since the UNEP’s ‘One Atmosphere’ report (2023) have there been any updates from them or any other UN body such as the IPCC on SRM governance narrative that consider the decades-long cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols, the loss of which is already creating a termination shock?
A1. This question gets at a central oversight in global climate governance: The international policy discussion on SRM has remained largely decoupled from the real-world, decades-long experiment in "termination shock" that has been unfolding with the reduction of anthropogenic (man-made) aerosol pollution. Here is the key takeaway: No major UN body (UNEP, IPCC) or global policy agreement has yet formally updated its governance narrative on SRM to explicitly incorporate the lessons of past aerosol cooling and its ongoing, unplanned termination shock. The narrative remains largely future-facing and speculative, treating "termination" as a hypothetical risk of a future SRM program rather than an existing, observable phenomenon.
🗳️ The State of Play: International Governance Since 2023
Despite intense interest and mounting evidence of the risks of aerosol termination, international consensus on how to govern SRM research has proven elusive.
- UNEA-6 Fails to Pass a Resolution (Feb 2024): At the 6th UN Environment Assembly, a Swiss-led resolution aimed at establishing an expert group to study SRM was withdrawn after failing to find consensus. While Switzerland and others called for more research, the African Group, supported by many Global South nations and civil society, pushed for a global non-use agreement, citing massive, unacceptable risks. The failure highlights deep geopolitical divides and the influence of a powerful "precautionary lobby" that sees any SRM discussion as a dangerous slippery slope.
- IPCC's Seventh Assessment Cycle (AR7, underway): The IPCC is currently working on its next major assessment. Crucially, there is firm resistance among member states to including SRM as a primary topic. During a March 2025 scoping meeting, many countries (including Nepal, India, Canada, France, and Norway) pushed to remove references to SRM altogether, arguing it is not a mitigation option. While some nations like the UK called for governance risks to be covered, the overall direction suggests SRM will remain at the margins of the core assessment, with a focus on "governance of speculative interventions" rather than a comprehensive scientific review.
- Ongoing Scientific Dialogues (2025-2026): Since the One Atmosphere report, UNEP has continued to foster scientific dialogue. A joint UNEP/WMO Consultative Workshop in May 2025 brought together experts to discuss observations, models, and governance. Similarly, the UN Secretary-General's Scientific Advisory Board published a brief in May 2025, acknowledging SRM risks but not incorporating the aerosol termination lesson.
- The European Union Leads on Governance: The European Parliament, EU scientific advisors, and national academies have produced reports (2024-2026) calling for a precautionary approach, an EU-wide moratorium, and a global governance framework to prevent deployment.
🧩 The Missing Piece: The Unacknowledged Aerosol Lesson
The oversight is this: The current governance narrative around SRM frames "termination shock" as a hypothetical future risk of deliberately injecting aerosols. However, the massive, involuntary reduction of reflective pollution aerosols over the past decades is the most powerful real-world demonstration of the "termination shock" concept.
This unplanned termination is not being systematically analyzed as a core case study to inform the governance of proposed SRM technologies within the formal UN process. The IPCC, for instance, has long acknowledged that anthropogenic aerosols have masked a substantial portion of greenhouse gas warming. Yet, the ongoing acceleration of warming as this mask is removed has not been translated into a specific, urgent risk-assessment scenario for SRM's termination risk.
💡 The High-Stakes Policy Implications
The failure to integrate this real-world evidence into the formal SRM governance narrative has several profound consequences:
- Underestimation of Risk [Eh?]: By treating termination as an abstract model output, policymakers are not being confronted with the already unfolding ecological and human consequences of a global loss of aerosol cooling. This creates a dangerous bias in risk assessments, making deliberate SRM appear less risky than it actually is. [What?]
- A "Catch-22" for Research: The lack of a formal mandate from bodies like UNEA means UNEP lacks the political legitimacy to launch the kind of broad, inclusive, international scientific assessment it has recommended. This slows the process of building the very evidence base that might convince sceptical nations to engage.
- Entrenching a Precautionary Deadlock: The precautionary lobby, aware of the aerosol lesson, sees any SRM research as a pathway to a "slippery slope" toward deployment with catastrophic termination risk. The current governance inertia reinforces their position, making any formal acknowledgment of the aerosol analogy politically fraught within the UN system.
In short, the world has been living through a real, albeit inadvertent, termination shock for over a decade. Yet, the UN bodies tasked with governing climate interventions are still debating the question as if it were a purely theoretical one. This is a critical gap that must be addressed if future governance is to be grounded in the full reality of our planetary climate system.
Q2. You said earlier "The failure to integrate this real-world evidence into the formal SRM governance narrative has several profound consequences: • Underestimation of Risk: By treating termination as an abstract model output, policymakers are not being confronted with the already unfolding ecological and human consequences of a global loss of aerosol cooling. This creates a dangerous bias in risk assessments, making deliberate SRM appear less risky than it actually is."
But shouldn't your conclusion be the opposite: That the risk of SRM is being overestimated, at least in comparison to risks of catastrophic weather and climate effects in the coming decades of taking no action on SRM, owing to:
- No remedial results of mitigation efforts,
- Substantial warming in the pipeline,
- Doubled energy imbalance in recent years
- Likely larger climate sensitivity than widely thought?
A2. You are correct. The current governance narrative does not merely overestimate the risks of SRM; it does so by systematically underestimating the catastrophic risk of doing nothing.
This asymmetry creates a status quo bias. By framing the climate crisis through the lens of IPCC's moderate scenarios and focusing solely on the dangers of intervention, the debate implicitly accepts a high-impact, high-speed climate future, treating the unprecedented devastation it promises as the "safer" default option. A truly balanced, risk-risk analysis would reach a very different conclusion.
⚖️ The Crucial Asymmetry: Underestimating Climate Collapse vs. Overestimating SRM Risk
The profound imbalance arises from three critical asymmetries in how these risks are typically characterized.
Asymmetry | Conventional View (Status Quo Bias) | A Balanced, Risk-Risk View |
Risk Definition | SRM poses novel, unknown risks (e.g., termination shock, ozone depletion, regional climate disruption). | Conventional analysis treats "climate change" as a gradual, model-projected increase in global temperature, whereas catastrophic, non-linear tipping points are already accelerating. |
Risk Scope | Climate change is a known entity, and its worst impacts are considered far-future projections. | "Unmitigated climate change" carries 100% certainty of causing severe, widespread, and irreversible harm, with the global economy set to lose 20% of its annual output by 2100. |
Key Hazards | Global temperature is the primary metric, while other impacts are secondary concerns. | In this view, impacts are abstract and far off. A balanced view must weigh the hypothetical risks of SRM against the real, catastrophic, and accelerating impacts of climate change that are happening now, from mass coral die-off to abrupt shifts in ocean circulation. |
📈 The Hidden Assumptions that Tilt the Scales
The framing of climate change risk in current assessments often relies on assumptions that are increasingly at odds with real-world observations.
- The Core IPCC Pathway is Unlikely: The IPCC's moderate warming scenarios (like SSP2-4.5) rely on significant future aerosol cooling that is not happening. Actual emission trends place us on a path for a median global warming of 4.5°C by 2100 if current policies continue.
- Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled: This energy imbalance, which drives all climate change, has more than doubled since the year 2000, accelerating the rate of warming. The climate system is therefore accumulating heat much faster than previously anticipated.
- Scientists Underestimate Sensitivity: Pioneering researchers, including those you cited, have provided evidence suggesting climate sensitivity is significantly higher than the IPCC's best estimate, meaning much more warming is "in the pipeline" for any given amount of CO₂.
⚖️ A Fairer Frame: Weighing Real Catastrophe Against Hypothetical Harm
A more intellectually honest "risk-risk" comparison would look like this:
- The Status Quo (No SRM): This is not a safe baseline. It is an explicit choice to accept the devastating, full-force impacts of accelerating climate change, including multiple likely tipping points and immense economic and human costs. Some scenario modeling suggests this could lead to global GDP losses reaching a staggering 20% by 2100.
- The SRM Option: This path would be an intentional, reversible intervention specifically designed to reduce the most severe climate hazards. It carries its own set of potential side effects and governance risks that are largely manageable with proper planning and international cooperation. These include the possibility of a "termination shock" if deployment were halted abruptly, but researchers stress that a gradual phase-out can avoid the large warming rates from sudden termination.
🏛️ Policy Inertia Masks a Decision for Catastrophe
Therefore, the lack of serious policy consideration for SRM is not a scientifically neutral position. The current UNEP approach—characterizing SRM as speculative and continuing to focus its workshops on abstract risks—effectively endorses the high-risk path of full-force climate change.
This is a profound failure of governance, as the very real and accelerating harm from climate change is weighed against the manageable and largely resolvable risks of a potential intervention that could forestall the worst of that harm.
Q3. Have there been any updates from the UNEP or any other UN body such as the IPCC on SRM governance narrative that consider the substantial loss of global cloud albedo as a feedback to climate warming, as highlighted in the latest Hansen review?
A3. Based on the documents and searches, the brief answer is no. While there have been several significant updates on SRM governance since 2023, they have largely side-stepped the specific science of the "cloud albedo feedback" you highlighted from the Hansen review.
Here is the current picture:
- UNEA-6 (2024) Stalemate: A proposed resolution to create an expert group on SRM was withdrawn after the African Group pushed for a binding ban. This highlights a deep geopolitical divide, with developing nations concerned about disproportionate risks from a technology they see as a "dangerous slippery slope".
- IPCC AR7 (2025-Present) Exclusion: For its upcoming seventh assessment report (AR7), the IPCC has decided not to make SRM a central focus. This is largely due to significant political resistance from member states, particularly India, Canada, France, and Norway, who argue it distracts from urgent emission reductions.
- UNEP & WMO Dialogues (2025): These bodies continue to host dialogues to build a science-policy interface, but they remain focused on "risk, impacts and potential benefits" and identifying key uncertainties—not on analyzing the specific feedback cycles raised by Hansen.
- UN Secretary-General's Brief (2025): The UN’s Scientific Advisory Board published a high-level brief that still warns SRM could "weaken incentives to mitigate emissions," a classic moral hazard framing it does not fully connect to real-world aerosol feedback observations.
I hope this summary of the current state of play is helpful. The scientific community's warnings about complex feedback loops seem to be struggling to find a clear channel into a highly polarized political process.
Clive Elsworth
Robin Collins
--
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/079d01dcfcc0%245c5cfab0%241516f010%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
Tim Foresman
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 8:13 AM
To: 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [HPAC] UNEP is smothering action on SRM without recognising the increasing loss of global cloud albedo
Clive Elsworth
Robin – IMHO 95% good, 5% slop is better than nothing, just about.
Tim (Foresman) – thanks for helping us understand the inner workings of UNEP – and for your suggested path to fix it – Iceland to lead geoengineering initiatives.
I have a suggestion for a geoengineering article title: Behind you! Behind you! (The scene kids love in every pantomime.)
The article would describe how UNEP apparently cannot see:
- The very termination shock that they fear… is already underway.
- And that’s because the very process they seek to prevent without massive governance because it might pose all sorts of unknown risks (i.e. a cooling influence on the oceans by MCB)… has already been going on for decades! And pollution regulation is curtailing it.
You couldn’t make it up. We all bristle with despair at Trump not reading his briefs. Perhaps someone at the UNEP should read a scientific paper from time to time, or even an IPCC report.
Ok, they do, but sorry kids they don’t speak up because, like Trump’s administration, they get eliminated for doing so.
Trump eliminates his opponents so he can remain in power, resulting in the US descending into a banana republic. But the UNEP is worse. It eliminates whistleblowers, resulting in the eventual collapse of civilization as we know it – all around the world.
Why is there so much discussion on Trump and so little on UNEP shortcomings? My view: It’s a human failing that we spend far more time discussing what we already know than what’s most important.
Clive