According to authors Albert Van Wijngaarden, PhD Candidate, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, Adrian Hindes, PhD Candidate, Solar Geo-engineering, Australian National University and Chloe Colomer, PhD Candidate at UCL Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP) Department, UCL, Solar geo-engineering research is advancing fast, after a recent flurry of funding announcements. The authors are all academic experts despite coming from different disciplines and using different arguments.
However, they agree that these technologies are still speculative and have many critics and said they are worried their concerns would fall on deaf ears. The trio are of the opinion that if geo-engineering is essentially allowed to self-regulate with no effective global governance, “future research could easily take us down a dangerous path.”
Solar geo-engineering refers to ways of reducing global warming by reflecting a portion of sunlight back into space before it reaches the Earth’s surface. In its best-known form, this means using high-flying aircraft to inject tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere.
This so-called “stratospheric aerosol injection” has only seen a few very small balloon experiments as for a long time, such ideas remained too controversial to even consider and for some academics still are. The academic discussion was highly polarised from the start.
Opponents, mainly governance scholars and social scientists, stood firmly entrenched against assumed proponents, mainly natural scientists and engineers. Both sides had their champions, arguments, assumptions, key publications and meetings, generally working on the topic without proper engagement with the other side.
This polarisation is still visible in publishing today. Critics focus on potential negatives such as altered rainfall patterns, the infringement of human rights, or even a catastrophic “termination shock”. Advocates highlight potential benefits such as reducing extreme heat and preserving ice caps, while others suggest we may soon be forced to try it.
A public and private funding boom
Though the two opposing camps have to date not resolved their arguments, geo-engineering research funding is suddenly booming. There are major philanthropic pledges of US$50 million (£38 million) and US$30 million from the Simons and Quadrature Climate Foundations, vying for the title of biggest donor with the £10.5 million and £56.8 million of the UK government’s UKRI and Advanced Research and Innovation Agency programmes.
The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blocked so much sunlight the world cooled by a few tenths of a degree. Solar geo-engineering works on a similar principle.
Other key organisations speaking about the need for more research include the European Commission, the US government and the World Climate Research Programme. This comes on top of the shock of controversial private enterprises pushing for solar geo-engineering, most notoriously the US-based start-up, Make Sunsets.
Support is certainly not unanimous. Many prominent scholars have signed up to a call for a moratorium, for instance. At a recent UN Environment Assembly session in Kenya, many climate-vulnerable nations mobilised against calls for further research into what they consider as highly risky technology that would enable big emitters to carry on emitting.
However, many powerful interests are seemingly in favour of more research, while the 1.5°C global warming target is moving ever further out of sight. In the near future, further research is planned, perhaps even including small-scale outdoor experiments.
“As PhD students working on geo-engineering, situated somewhere between both camps, we have found this polarisation deeply unproductive and difficult to deal with. Our own research sometimes feels like wandering through a minefield of opinions and perspectives. Yet we can also see the valuable concerns and hopes of both sides.” – Authors
One proposal involved releasing particles from a tethered high-altitude balloon and the proponents of aerosol injection believe future research projects should factor in concerns of opponents and not represent only supporters of geoengineering or those who have not been explicitly against it. Excluding critical voices would directly impact the scientific process.
However, this exclusion is especially concerning as there are currently no governance structures for solar geo-engineering. If efforts to develop such governance only involve supportive researchers, lit would lack critical capacity to prevent risks or undesired effects. Disasters in the financial sector and the chemical industry had already warned humanity and the scientific world of the perils of self-regulation without critical voices.
Learn from the critics
There are also other critiques which ought to be considered in any major research project, including concerns that technology research will create a slippery slope to it being deployed and worries that geo-engineering ignores social and political dynamics behind climate change and only addresses its outcomes. There are also major governance concerns over issues such as the role of the military (could geo-engineering be deployed for security reasons in contested regions like the Arctic?) or the concentration of research at influential institutions in the US and Europe.
Geo-engineering researchers have become more aware of such arguments and some are trying to include them in their work. The American Geophysical Union has recently published an ethical framework for geo-engineering, which should provide valuable guidance for any research project. However, it is believed that without active dialogue with critical scholars, their arguments would only echo faintly in the pro-research space.
In practice, more engagement between the two camps would come with many difficulties. For advocates, it can be tempting to avoid such debates and exclude those who disagree with the very foundations on which their research is built. On the flip side, some scholars who have already explicitly argued against the continuation of solar geo-engineering research would nevertheless have to participate in it.
The practical implications will therefore need to be carefully worked out. However, a more productive dialogue might still shape a future that can be acceptable to all sides.
Re-written information used per Commons License from The Conversation.
