Whether and how to research or even conduct experiments on so-called solar radiation modifications is a complex question. In this post I reflect on my personal motivation to pursue the Co-CREATE project in the hopes of co-developing helpful guidance.
By Matthias Honegger (Perspectives Climate Research)*
I have dedicated the first decade of my professional life to accelerating policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions and remove CO2 already emitted from the atmosphere to mitigate climate change. And while this unequivocally must be the cornerstone of climate action – alongside efforts to adapt to changes already occurring – I believe we also must pay careful attention to additional developments for better or worse.
Despite the strong mitigation efforts and encouraging progress on clean technologies, as well as climate friendly cultural change, we are far from a trajectory to a safe climate future as governments consistently lag behind their promises, which themselves remain inadequate. The policies currently in place commit us to almost 3°C by end of the century. This is unacceptable and all hands need to be on deck to reach climate neutrality swiftly and decisively.
Yet in the realm of research (barely on the radar of governments), the theoretical potential of climate interventions is also becoming increasingly relevant. This is indicative of growing desperation of what is to come as we see severe climate impacts at present warming level of 1.45°C in 2023.
What is Solar Radiation Modification?
One prominent approach is through so-called Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), which – under good conditions – theoretically holds significant potential to reduce suffering and ecosystem degradation. Yet this relevance is not simply a positive one: Ill conceived and intransparent research also poses serious concerns and a potential threat.
Given the increasingly desperate state of the climate, however, the powerful potential of SRM – for good and bad cannot be ignored. If responsible research can remove some of the uncertainties and help strengthen governance, then its pursuit is a must. One method would – imperfectly – counteract the heating and associated precipitation changes by dispersing light-scattering aerosols in the upper atmosphere as also outlined by the the UN Environment Program. No serious actor has yet attempted to do this. The theoretical effectiveness is, however, fairly well understood based on the natural analogue of volcano eruptions and from dedicated modelling studies. And a willing actor might be able to pursue tests or even incremental deployment within five years. Yet modelling has not been done systematically to answer policy-relevant questions of feasibility and – more importantly – desirability. And neither policymakers nor civil society have had time yet to contemplate the stakes involved in such actions. In this situation, deployment would be completely unacceptable.
(How) should we research solar radiation modification?
Whether and how to research the merits, risks, and broader implications of climate interventions remains debated in environmental policy circles. Some suggest holding off on research for fear that it distracts from mitigation or that it would add to the risk of ungoverned deployment, which would undermine the international order and risk rapid warming in case of an abrupt stop. While concerns relating to the idea of SRM are understandable, holding back research – and deliberation – may also come with risks: Worsening climate impacts could bring SRM into the spotlight – including of actors willing to use it unilaterally – before responsible research would have prepared the ground for scientifically informed and carefully deliberated decisions at the global level.
The Co-CREATE project seeks to develop some orientation in this landscape of questions. Funded through the Horizon Europe research programme it explores whether and under which conditions responsible research including field experiments may be desirable. It aspires to perhaps offer some orientation – in the form of decision-support tools, guidelines and principles – that research funders may consider as they navigate such decisions.
My engagement is grounded in the belief that together and with time we make better decisions. Better – both for the quality of outcomes, as well as for the legitimacy of the process. We humans have an amazing capacity of jointly figuring out vexing problems if we are willing to subject even the most thorny issues to the forces of democracy.
I see democracy as a flow of passionate debate and dispassionate deliberation, which must draw on scientific insight. The project – Co-CREATE – is here to facilitate dispassionate deliberation and to structure scientific insight to help answer whether and under which conditions research and experiments on solar radiation modification may be warranted from a scientific and societal viewpoint. The ultimate answers will not come from the project consortium’s but that of the legitimate European institutions as well as those of member states and other countries in the European Research Area.
Conditions for Responsible Research of SRM – Analysis, Co-creation, and Ethos
In my view, the project title offers more than a catchy acronym. It outlines missing ingredients for the governance of SRM research.
The second part of the title alludes to specific contributions that I hope the project can offer. It starts with an interdisciplinary analysis of scientific, ethical, and regulatory dimensions of such conditions and includes examination of similar governance challenges. It also points to the co-creation of potential guiding principles jointly with SRM researchers and stakeholders – including in places where SRM experiments could in principle offer important insights. And, finally, the project should in my view advance the ethos of transparency and accountability already upstream of policy decisions.
While I understand the mandate given to the project team to express an expectation that it supports public policy, I am also aware of the limitations of the teams’ authority: Our role is to produce ideas, suggestions and even recommendations including to help separate meaningful from problematic SRM research proposals. But it cannot take the place of political decision-making. We may seek to empower the EU and its member states to shape SRM research in Europe, but it is up to the officials to consider and adopt, modify, or reject whatever set of principles Co-CREATE will put forward.
Values, ethics and science
Why are ethics, norms, and values important when faced with the prospect of solar radiation modification research and experimentation? To some, the situation may seem clear – we must research this potentially life-saving technology with urgency – they might say. Scientific areas as new and impactful as SRM may seem to emerge in a norm-free space – as if there were no applicable rules or established ways.
But this would be wrong: There are always existing norms and expectations – for example regarding public participation, freedom of research, and precaution – even if we have not yet figured out how exactly they apply. Ignoring them would undermine otherwise well-meaning research efforts. This is as true for climate interventions as it is for AI or biotech, where public reaction is also indicative of a need for dedicated governance.
The Co-CREATE project is therefore set to proactively engage with diverse views – in keeping with the academic notion of Responsible Research and Innovation. I hope this will allow us to widen our anticipation of how public opinion might come to view SRM experiments and under which conditions those would be deemed legitimate. Responsible Research and Innovation is widely viewed as an important opportunity for anticipating more broadly the ethical and scientific dimensions of new technologies. For SRM research this could mean to avoid unfair future outcomes should SRM be used. It can also help reduce the ethical blindspots of an otherwise narrow research community. Such dialogue between researcher and publics can empower a form of dynamic governance, adapting as the flow of mutual learning elevates some concerns and attenuates others.
Uncertainty of outcomes from action and inaction
On the one hand, there are concerns with SRM research including that it elevates SRM prematurely to a policy option or that research is distracting from decarbonization. On the other hand, there are also growing risks in case of inaction: I hope that Co-CREATE can do justice to potential issues associated with research and experiments as well as to the potential consequences should responsible research be held back. Perhaps the call for balance can help explore this terrain.
The question before us – at least for now – is solely whether and how to pursue certain forms of research including field experiments. But it is important that we get this right as it will set the tone for the more consequential question of whether or not to pursue such climate interventions – a question that will affect everyone on this planet.
What is Governance and where does Co-CREATE fit in?
Early steps toward governance under the UN Convention on Biodiversity and attempts at self-governance from within the academic community through voluntary codes of conduct have fallen short of effectively guiding researchers and research funders as evident by recent controversy over a potential experiment over Sweden leading to its cancellation. I see Co-CREATE’s work as developing the basis for justifiable and accountable decisions on the research into solar radiation modification.
This may prove important beyond the realm of research itself: In its call for proposals the EU Commission rightfully asks whether and how responsible research in Europe may help discourage unregulated and undesirable deployment elsewhere. The stunt of a haphazard American startup selling cooling credits comes to mind, but more powerful actors are the real worry. I suspect that carefully designed international research cooperation, global monitoring and assessment and science-diplomacy could become helpful to advancing SRM governance overall. This question goes, however, beyond the scope of our project. Only time will tell.
* Disclosure statement:
This is a personal reflection on the motivations of the author toward the Co-CREATE project funded by the European Commission. It does not represent the views of the project consortium nor of the European Commission.