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.