Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative

Carnegie Council logo

Paths toward decisions on solar geoengineering

Janos PasztorKai Uwe Barani Schmidtby Janos Pasztor and Kai-Uwe Schmidt / April 25

The absence of effective, comprehensive governance surrounding the research and decision-making around the potential deployment of solar geoengineering technologies (as part of the global risk management approach for climate change) poses a critical risk to current and future generations.

This may seem a curious position given that as of this writing, the global effort is on mobilizing mitigation action, and no large-scale international effort to reflect back more solar radiation actually exists (beyond a few models in a few laboratories).

But this situation could change more rapidly than we think. As climate stresses increase, and if action to limit temperature rise by dramatically reducing emissions and removing the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere remain at today’s woefully inadequate level, a growing number of actors are likely to suggest looking at these ideas, to potentially buy society some breathing space.

C2G2 Top Priority

C2G2 will catalyse international agreements to help prevent the deployment of solar geoengineering unless (i) the risks and potential benefits are sufficiently understood, and (ii) international governance frameworks are agreed

Late last year, Congressional leaders from both parties in US House of Representatives—a body which in the last decade has opposed efforts to mitigate human-caused climate change—held a hearing with a view to putting solar geoengineering research firmly on the agenda.

As early as this year, Harvard University’s SCoPEx experiment may move research on stratospheric aerosol injection from the lab to the outdoors for the first time. There is growing pressure to explore ways of protecting or refreezing the Artic, to protect coral reefs, or to brighten clouds at sea.

And there is the possibility that the world may—sooner than expected—experience a climate tipping point so grave that public pressure to “do something” becomes overwhelming.  Solar geoengineering could easily find itself on the table as a possibility, as according to scientists this is the only technology that could potentially reduce temperatures sufficiently rapidly to avoid a lengthy overshoot of the 1.5-2°C temperature rise goal, and potentially irreversible impacts related to it.

Insufficiently governed solar geoengineering could pose a lasting risk to human well-being and security. As we wrote last year in Science, “The world is heading to an increasingly risky future and is unprepared to address the institutional and governance challenges posed by these technologies.”

Furthermore, these technologies should not be deployed in isolation from massive action on mitigation and removals. The globe faces a risk that requires a holistic risk management approach that comprises informed action on the cause and on the symptoms.

The bottom line is that decisions regarding any deployment of solar geoengineering technologies should not be taken unless we know a lot more about their risks and potential benefits, and about how we would govern them.

The question is where we would even begin to create that governance. What are the appropriate bodies? Which fora would be most effective, and viewed as most inclusive and legitimate by the world’s governments, since solar geoengineering would affect every country in the world in one way or another?

The answer, it seems to us and others in the field, is that no one body or process can handle this alone. In a multipolar world, the effective governance of emerging technologies depends on engaging multiple actors, processes and institutions, from the global to the local.

But we face an early, difficult challenge. Key actors are holding back from essential discussions about the governance of solar geoengineering. There are numerous reasons for this, including ‘moral hazard’ and a lack of awareness on the part of decision-makers as to the risks and potential benefits.

To overcome this reluctance requires leaders ready to champion the discussion of these issues, to share information and mobilise others.

We also need governments and institutions to develop the knowledge and build the capacity necessary for informed decision-making: whatever the final decisions may be.

Catalysing the learning process

catalyzing the learning process

To that end, we are building a network of actors — in intergovernmental bodies, governments and civil society — who can spearhead global discussions on governance of solar geoengineering, and prevent its deployment unless (i) the risks and potential benefits are sufficiently understood, and (ii) international governance frameworks are agreed.

More specifically, we are engaging with senior officials representing their governments in intergovernmental processes, such as the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA); the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the Convention on Biological Diversity.  We are also planning to address others, such as the OECD, G20, G7, Arctic Council, AU and EU.  In each case, we are engaging with the intergovernmental secretariats of these processes to seek their support.

One early outcome we aim to catalyse is a resolution by the UN Environment Assembly in March 2019, which would begin to address solar geoengineering governance within the context of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals.  The learning provided by the process leading to and resulting from the UNEA resolution, as well as outcomes from activities in different intergovernmental fora, would prepare governments step-by-step to address the issue of governance in an increasingly comprehensive manner.

By 2022, we envisage that the UN General Assembly, the world’s most universal and legitimate body, would be ready to actively consider this issue, and we are planning activities in the coming years to prepare for this.

A potential timeline towards multilateral governance of geoengineering

graphic: C2G2 potential timeline

We will encourage countries to embrace our approach and governance priorities. And we will work with civil society organizations, faith groups, think tanks, humanitarian organizations, as well as sub-national actors, to join the approach and contribute to the emergence of governance of solar geoengineering.

None of this will be simple, but we need to start now.

Within a year, we may see the world’s first outdoor experiment on stratospheric aerosol injection take place in the skies above Arizona, yet for the most part governments are not addressing the profound questions this poses.

If that doesn’t change, we may be in danger of events overtaking our capacity to respond.

For more information, please read the summary of our approach. Please also take advantage on our online presentations and material.

Privacy Preference Center

Web Analytics

These are used to track user interaction and detect potential problems. These help us improve our services by providing analytical data on how users use this site.

gdpr, _ga, _gid, _gat

Share This