Scientists call for halt on ‘dangerous and distracting’ solar geo-engineering

Posted on

Source: Solar Geo-Engineering NonUser Agreement 

There are growing calls in recent years for research on “solar geoengineering“, a set of entirely speculative technologies to reduce incoming sunlight on earth in order to limit global warming. Our initiative stands against such emerging initiatives to explore planetary techno-fixes as a climate policy option. Solar geoengineering deployment at planetary scale cannot be fairly and effectively governed in the current system of international institutions. It also poses unacceptable risk if ever implemented as part of future climate policy. A strong political message from governments, the United Nations and civil society is urgently needed.

ABOUT

What is Solar Geoengineering?

Solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation management or modification, SRM), refers to a set of speculative technologies to lower global temperatures by artificially intervening in the climate systems of our planet. Simply put, solar geoengineering interventions would reflect some incoming sunlight back into space and hence ‘dim the sun’.

Simply put, solar geoengineering interventions would reflect some incoming sunlight back into space and hence ‘dim the sun’.

Solar geoengineering is highly controversial. It is risky and uncertain. It does not address the root cause of climate change, that is, greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations. Instead, solar geoengineering focuses on ‘symptom treatment’, seeking to limit global warming by merely masking the effect of greenhouse gas emissions.

The most prominent example of solar geoengineering is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which calls for injecting tiny reflective particles into the stratosphere, for example, by airplanes or balloons. These particles would scatter and reflect some incoming sunlight back into space. The idea for stratospheric aerosol injection draws on volcanic eruptions and their cooling effect on the climate system. A widely cited source of inspiration is the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, which hurled large amounts of sulphur into the troposphere and stratosphere with a cooling effect on global temperatures.

Stratospheric aerosol injection is the most prominent example of solar geoengineering because it would be used to influence the climate at a planetary scale, seems technically feasible, and is seen as affordable.

Other examples of solar geoengineering are:

  • Marine cloud brightening: this would make clouds brighter, to reflect more sunlight back into space. Mostly, this aims at more regional effects.
  • Cirrus cloud thinning: this would make cirrus clouds thinner, which on average trap more heat than they reflect back into space.
  • Space mirrors: this outlandish idea proposes to place mirrors in space to reflect sunlight, aiming to cool the whole planet. It is not widely researched nor taken seriously.

A few countries have published overviews of the technical aspects of solar geoengineering, for example in the United States (NAS), the United Kingdom (Royal Society) and Germany (Eu-TRACE). NGOs have also provided critical assessments of geoengineering, such as the ETC Group, together with the Heinrich Böll Foundation (here).

For more information on the risks of solar geoengineering, see our Resources page.

Important: The term ‘geo-engineering’ is used for many different technologies, in addition to solar geoengineering. In the domain of climate change, it is sometimes also used to describe various ways of removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it. We do not express an opinion on carbon removal technologies here.

“In sum, an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering would be timely, feasible, and effective.

It would inhibit further normalization and development of a risky and poorly understood set of technologies that seek to intentionally manage incoming sunlight at planetary scale, and it would do so without restricting legitimate climate research.

It would prevent a dangerous distraction from current climate policies by removing the false promise of a cheap and feasible alternative “Plan B” in the form of solar geoengineering.

Decarbonization of our economies is feasible if the right steps are taken, leading also to innovation opportunities through economic transformation and ecological benefits beyond climate change mitigation.

Solar geoengineering is not necessary. Neither is it desirable, ethical, or politically governable in the current context.”

 

OPEN LETTER

We Call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering

We call for immediate political action from governments, the United Nations, and other actors to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. Governments and the United Nations must assert effective political control and restrict the development of solar geoengineering technologies at planetary scale. Specifically, we call for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.

Solar geoengineering⎯a set of hypothetical technologies to reduce incoming sunlight on earth⎯is gaining prominence in debates on climate policy. Several scientists have launched research projects on solar geoengineering, and some see it as a potential future policy option.

To us, these proliferating calls for solar geoengineering research and development are cause for alarm. We share three fundamental concerns:

First, the risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known. Impacts will vary across regions, and there are uncertainties about the effects on weather patterns, agriculture, and the provision of basic needs of food and water.

Second, speculative hopes about the future availability of solar geoengineering technologies threaten commitments to mitigation and can disincentivize governments, businesses, and societies to do their utmost to achieve decarbonization or carbon neutrality as soon as possible. The speculative possibility of future solar geoengineering risks becoming a powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate denialists, and some governments to delay decarbonization policies.

Third, the current global governance system is unfit to develop and implement the far-reaching agreements needed to maintain fair, inclusive, and effective political control over solar geoengineering deployment. The United Nations General Assembly, the United Nations Environment Programme or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are all incapable of guaranteeing equitable and effective multilateral control over deployment of solar geoengineering technologies at planetary scale. The United Nations Security Council, dominated by only five countries with veto power, lacks the global legitimacy that would be required to effectively regulate solar geoengineering deployment.

These concerns also arise with informal governance arrangements such as multi-stakeholder dialogues or voluntary codes of conduct. Informal arrangements face barriers to entry by less powerful actors and risk contributing to premature legitimization of these speculative technologies. Science networks are dominated by a few industrialized countries, with less economically powerful countries having little or no direct control over them. Technocratic governance based on expert commissions cannot adjudicate complex global conflicts over values, risk allocation and differences in risk acceptance that arise within the context of solar geoengineering.

Without effective global and democratic controls, the geopolitics of possible unilateral deployment of solar geoengineering would be frightening and inequitable. Given the anticipated low monetary costs of some of these technologies, there is a risk that a few powerful countries would engage in solar geoengineering unilaterally or in small coalitions even when a majority of countries oppose such deployment.

In short, solar geoengineering deployment cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner. We therefore call for immediate political action from governments, the United Nations, and other actors to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. Governments and the United Nations should take effective political control and restrict the development of solar geoengineering technologies before it is too late. We advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering specifically targeted against the development and deployment of such technologies at planetary scale.

The International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering should commit governments to five core prohibitions and measures:

  1. The commitment to prohibit their national funding agencies from supporting the development of technologies for solar geoengineering, domestically and through international institutions.
  2. The commitment to ban outdoor experiments of solar geoengineering technologies in areas under their jurisdiction.
  3. The commitment to not grant patent rights for technologies for solar geoengineering, including supporting technologies such as for the retrofitting of airplanes for aerosol injections.
  4. The commitment to not deploy technologies for solar geoengineering if developed by third parties.
  5. The commitment to object to future institutionalization of planetary solar geoengineering as a policy option in relevant international institutions, including assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering would not prohibit atmospheric or climate research as such, and it would not place broad limitations on academic freedom. The agreement would instead focus solely on a specific set of measures targeted purely at restricting the development of solar geoengineering technologies under the jurisdiction of the parties to the agreement.

International political control over the development of contested, high-stakes technologies with planetary risks is not unprecedented. The international community has a rich history of international restrictions and moratoria over activities and technologies judged to be too dangerous or undesirable. This history demonstrates that international bans on the development of specific technologies do not limit legitimate research or stifle scientific innovation. In addition, an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering could include exceptions for less dangerous approaches, for example by allowing the use of localized surface albedo-related technologies that pose few cross-regional or global risks.

In sum, an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering would be timely, feasible, and effective. It would inhibit further normalization and development of a risky and poorly understood set of technologies that seek to intentionally manage incoming sunlight at planetary scale. And it would do so without restricting legitimate climate research. Decarbonization of our economies is feasible if the right steps are taken. Solar geoengineering is not necessary. Neither is it desirable, ethical, or politically governable in the current context.

Given the increasing normalization of solar geoengineering research, a strong political message to block these technologies is required. An International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering is needed now.

Original Article

in WIREs Climate Change

Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement

Biermann, F., Oomen, J., Gupta, A., Ali, S. H., Conca, K., Hajer, M. A., Kashwan, P., Kotzé, L. J., Leach, M., Messner, D., Okereke, C., Persson, Å., Potocˇnik, J., Schlosberg, D., Scobie, M., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2022). Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement. WIREs Climate Change, 13(3), e754. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.754

1Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
2Urban Futures Studio, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands 3Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
4Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
5Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
6School of International Service, American University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA
7Urban Futures Studio, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
8Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA
9Faculty of Law, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
10Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
11German Environment Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany
12Centre for Climate Change and Development, Alex-Ekwueme Federal University Ndufu-Alike, Abakaliki, Nigeria 13Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
14Department of Thematic Studies—Environmental Change, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
15International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, France
16SYSTEMIQ, UK
17Sydney Environment Institute, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
18Institute of International Relations, The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago
19McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

RELATED WIREs ARTICLES

Is solar geoengineering ungovernable? A critical assessment of governance challenges identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change
Climate geoengineering: issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in

Dual high-stake emerging technologies: a review of the climate engineering research literature The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering
Intellectual property policies for solar geoengineering

REFERENCES

Aguilar, R., Fujs, T., Lakner, D. G., Mahler, M., Schoch, M. & Viveros, M. (2021, March). Global poverty update from the World Bank. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/march-2021-global-poverty-update-world-bank

Asayama, S., Bellamy, R., Geden, O., Pearce, W., & Hulme, M. (2019). Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nature Climate Change, 9(8), 570–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0543-4

Barrett, S., Lenton, T. M., Millner, A., Tavoni, A., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J. M., Chapin, F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hughes, T., Kautsky, N., Lambin, E. F., Naylor, R., Nyborg, K., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., … de Zeeuw, A. (2014). Climate engi- neering reconsidered. Nature Climate Change, 4(7), 527–529. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2278

Biermann, F., & Möller, I. (2019). Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South. Interna- tional Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09431-0

Cairns, R. C. (2014). Climate geoengineering: Issues of path-dependence and socio-technical lock-in: Climate geoengineering lock-in. WIREs Climate Change, 5(5), 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.296

Carton, W., Asiyanbi, A., Beck, S., Buck, H. J., & Lund, J. F. (2020). Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal. WIREs Cli- mate Change. 11(6), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.671

Chalecki, E. L., & Ferrari, L. L. (2018). A new security framework for geoengineering. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(2), 82–106.
Chemnick, J. (2019, September 15). U.S. blocks U.N. resolution on geoengineering. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-blocks-u-n-resolution-on-geoengineering/

Conca, K. (2019). Prospects for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on climate engineering. Environmental Politics, 28(3), 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1522065

Corry, O. (2017). The international politics of geoengineering: The feasibility of Plan B for tackling climate change. Security Dialogue, 48(4), 297–315.

Dai, Z., Burns, E. T., Irvine, P. J., Tingley, D. H., Xu, J., & Keith, D. W. (2021). Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consis- tent views on solar geoengineering. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6

Flegal, J. A., & Gupta, A. (2018). Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions ofequity. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9377-6

Flegal, J. A., Hubert, A.-M., Morrow, D. R., & Moreno-Cruz, J. B. (2019). Solar geoengineering: Social science, legal, ethical, and economic frameworks. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44(1), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030032

Gupta, A., & Möller, I. (2019). De facto governance: How authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance. Environmental Politics, 28(3), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1452373

Harding, A. R., Ricke, K., Heyen, D., MacMartin, D. G., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2020). Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality. Nature Communications, 11(1), 227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x

Heyen, D., Horton, J., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2019). Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 95, 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.03.005

Holahan, R., & Kashwan, P. (2019). Disentangling the rhetoric of public goods from their externalities: The case of climate engineering.Global Transitions, 1, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glt.2019.07.001

Hulme, M. (2014). Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Polity Press.

Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D. (2019). Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nature Climate Change, 9(4), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0398-8

Jinnah, S., Nicholson, S., Morrow, D. R., Dove, Z., Wapner, P., Valdivia, W., Thiele, L. P., McKinnon, C., Light, A., Lahsen, M., Kashwan, P., Gupta, A., Gillespie, A., Falk, R., Conca, K., Chong, D., & Chhetri, N. (2019). Governing climate engineering: A proposal for immediategovernance of solar radiation management. Sustainability, 11(14), 3954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143954 Keith, D. W. (2013). A case for climate engineering. The MIT Press.

Keith, D. W., Wagner, G., & Zabel, C. L. (2017). Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden. Nature Climate Change, 7(9), 617–619. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3376

Kravitz, B., & MacMartin, D. G. (2020). Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7

Lamb, W. F., Mattioli, G., Levi, S., Roberts, J. T., Capstick, S., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. C., Müller-Hansen, F., Culhane, T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Discourses of climate delay. Global Sustainability, 3, e17. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13

Lawrence, M. G., Schäfer, S., Muri, H., Scott, V., Oschlies, A., Vaughan, N. E., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Haywood, J., & Scheffran, J. (2018). Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nature Communications, 9(1), 3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3

Low, S., & Boettcher, M. (2020). Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris. Earth System Governance, 5, 100073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100073

Low, S., & Honegger, M. (2020). A precautionary assessment of systemic projections and promises in sunlight reflection and carbon removal modeling. Risk Analysis. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13565

McLaren, D., & Corry, O. (2021). The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change, 12(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.707

McLaren, D. P. (2018). Whose climate and whose ethics? Conceptions of justice in solar geoengineering modelling. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 209–221.

McKinnon, C. (2019). Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research. Environmental Politics, 28(3), 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1450344

McLaren, D. P., & Markusson, N. (2020). The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nature Climate Change, 10, 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0740-1

Morrow, D. R. (2020). A mission-driven research program on solar geoengineering could promote justice and legitimacy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23(5), 618–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1694220

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Reflecting sunlight: Recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance (25762). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25762

Oomen, J. (2021). Imagining climate engineering: Dreaming of the designer climate. Routledge.

Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming (1st U.S. ed.). Bloomsbury Press.

Rahman, A. A., Artaxo, P., Asrat, A., & Parker, A. (2018). Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature, 556 (7699), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03917-8

Reynolds, J. L. (2019). The governance of solar geoengineering: Managing climate change in the Anthropocene (1st ed.). Cambridge UniversityPress. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676790

Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Is solar geoengineering ungovernable? A critical assessment of governance challenges identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. WIREs Climate Change, 12(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.690

Robock, A. (2015, February 17). The CIA asked me about controlling the climate – This is why we should worry. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/17/cia-controlling-climate-geoengineering-climate-change

Schlosberg, D., & Collins, L. (2014). From environmental to climate justice: Climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. WIREs Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374.

Schneider, T., Kaul, C. M., & Pressel, K. G. (2020). Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct effects of CO2 on strato- cumulus cloud cover. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(48), 30179–30185. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.2003730117

Stephens, J. C., Kashwan, P., McLaren, D., & Surprise, K. (2021). The risks of solar geoengineering research. Science, 372(6547), 1161–1161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3679

Svoboda, T., Irvine, P. J., Callies, D., & Sugiyama, M. (2018). The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injec- tions to reduce climate injustice. Journal of Global Ethics, 14(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2018.1552180

Szerszynski, B., Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., & Stilgoe, J. (2013). Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democ- racy won’t mix. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 45(12), 2809–2816. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45649

UN Food and Agriculture Organization. (2019). The state of food security and nutrition in the world. FAO.

Wagner, G. (2021). Geoengineering: The gamble. Polity Press.

Wagner, G., & Weitzman, M. L. (2012, October 24). Playing God. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/24/playing-god/

Winickoff, D. E., Flegal, J. A., & Asfawossen, A. (2015). Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change,5(7), 627–634.

Pledge Your Vote Now
Change language