Solar Radiation Modification: A Conversation on Governance and Research

The 2023 Emissions Gap Report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) delivered a stark warning: even full implementation of the Paris Agreement would fall far short of keeping global temperature rises below 2°C. This alarming gap has brought alternative options, such as solar radiation modification (SRM), into sharper focus. SRM aims to limit global temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space, but its inclusion in policy discussions raises significant risks and uncertainties. This side event sought to promote an open and inclusive dialogue—particularly within the climate-vulnerable Global South—on critical governance and research issues surrounding SRM.

In opening remarks, Anita Nzeh, The Degrees Initiative, outlined her organization's mission to empower the Global South to actively participate in global discussions on solar geoengineering. She emphasized that The Degrees Initiative funds 35 research teams across 22 developing countries, maintaining a neutral stance on whether SRM should ultimately be deployed. Instead, she said, the focus is on building capacity to study its potential impacts on these regions.

In an introductory presentation, Andy Parker, Chief Executive Officer, The Degrees Initiative, explained that SRM gained attention after it was observed that large volcanic eruptions, resulting in volcanic sulfate particles reflecting incoming sunlight have cooled the atmosphere. While the possibility of geoengineering such a cooling process has been demonstrated and that it would take USD 10-20 billion per year to deploy it, the question of whether it should be undertaken raises ethical, economic, and political considerations.

Continuing the presentation, Nana Ama Brown Klutse, University of Ghana and Vice-Chair of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), then stressed SRM research focuses on computer modeling rather than deployment of the technology. When applied prudently and in conjunction with net-zero objectives, it could mitigate risks like sea-level rise or intense storms, but careless deployment poses serious dangers, such as taking attention away from mitigation efforts, overcooling the planet, or disrupting regional weather patterns. Socio-politically, SRM raises moral hazards, she said, for example, could it undermine CO2 reduction efforts or could it, in fact, galvanize stronger climate action? Governance and equity concerns loom large, she underscored, particularly over decision-making between the Global North and South. “Politics,” Parker then added, is the “single most difficult dimension.” He warned against unilateral uses of the technology and potential difficulties in finding consensus over where to “set the world’s thermostat,” asking: Would a world with SRM be more, or less, governable than a world with climate change?

A Q&A session highlighted the urgency of discussing SRM within the UNFCCC despite the risk that it could overshadow decarbonization efforts. Speakers emphasized the need for research to understand its potential impacts, including lessons from past sulfur reductions, to address trade-offs.

An ensuing panel discussion was moderated by Matthias Honegger, Perspectives Climate Group and Lead, Co-CREATE project. Hassaan Sipra, Director of Global Engagement at the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, emphasized the growing civil society interest in SRM, driven by the urgent need for governance to prevent siloed and exclusive decision-making. With climate change hurtling toward a 3°C rise by 2100, the question becomes whether SRM risks are the lesser evil compared to unmitigated climate impacts. Ignoring SRM, he said, allows unchecked actions by non-inclusive entities: for example, rapid advancements, including recent philanthropic initiatives, are largely funded by Global North institutions. Sipra stressed the importance of Global South perspectives in shaping equitable global decisions.

Lisa Graumlich, President, American Geophysical Union (AGU), highlighted the critical need for an ethical framework to guide SRM research and decision making. Under AGU’s leadership, she described the Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research, which was developed to ensure that research aligns with ethical principles and is inclusive, transparent, and representative. Graumlich emphasized that SRM must complement, not replace, emission reductions as part of a comprehensive climate strategy. She outlined five key principles contained in the Ethical Framework: responsible research; holistic climate justice; inclusive public participation; transparency; and informed governance through independent review.

Thelma Krug, Climate Overshoot Commission and former IPCC WGI Vice-Chair, discussed the inclusion of SRM in successive IPCC assessments, noting increased references and research over time but no restrictive language. She emphasized the significant gap between modeling and experimental SRM research, expressing doubts about current progress. The Climate Overshoot Commission’s report Reducing the Risks of Climate Overshoot, she continued, advocates for small-scale SRM simulations and stresses the need for Global South researchers' involvement. Krug highlighted the importance of research funding agencies supporting quality studies and called for governance principles to enable responsible research as part of broader climate strategies, with clear communication to the public and policymakers.

Jason Jabbour, UNEP, outlined the rationale for the One Atmosphere Report, emphasizing the need to enlist a multidisciplinary expert panel to engage in a comprehensive review of emerging technologies and interventions. The report, he continued, highlights significant gaps in knowledge, particularly around socioecological and environmental risks, much of which remains conceptual. Jabbour raised concerns about the dominance of Global North modeling, stressing the need for equitable access to knowledge and inclusive research. He underscored the importance of scientific review to inform discussions, urging proactive engagement within UNFCCC contexts rather than avoidance: “It is not the time to bury our heads in the sand,” he concluded.

The Q&A session emphasized the challenges of creating a stable, long-term governance framework for SRM, highlighting concerns about unilateral actions and the dominance of Global North perspectives in research and decision-making.

Organizer: The Degrees Initiative

Contact: Anita Nzeh I anzeh@degrees.ngo

Website: https://www.degrees.ngo