Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) has been scientifically, politically and societally divisive. Some experts don’t even want to discuss proposals to go on with fundamental research in the field. There is fear that future societies could succumb to “techno fix” attitudes, potentially damaging current climate change mitigation policies. Other experts believe that interventions such as cloud brightening, aerosol injection, and creating more reflective surfaces must be part of a possible intervention portfolio, especially if other measures fail. Regardless of position, both sides agree that the planet’s future is in peril and people and governments must act.
- With the consequences of climate change rising, should we be doing fundamental research on SRM, or at least verifying the feasibility of these technologies?
- How can we deal with the risks and consequences that some actors will deploy SRM techniques unilaterally?
- How do we create an inclusive multilateral process to make sure that no country is left out of any possible decision on using SRM technologies?
“Questions about whether to pursue new technologies that could deflect the sun’s rays and prevent more climate-affected droughts or heatwaves have become politically charged.
”
“Among the chief concerns is that tinkering with the planet’s air to cool the Earth’s warming climate might weaken resolve to reduce heat-trapping CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning.
”
“Opponents of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) believe that, from a scientific perspective, it’s too risky and could open a Pandora’s box; and, from a political perspective, even discussing it could weaken our emissions-cutting resolve.
”
“Without necessarily being supporters, some believe all options, including SRM, should at least be examined with scientific eyes, particularly since emissions-cutting alone won’t save the day.
”
“The only firm area of agreement is that more action is urgently needed to keep the planet from overheating, which is why GESDA, a neutral platform for dialogue, invited the panel.
”
“The Paris Peace Forum and its Climate Overshoot Commission believes the pursuit of these new technologies should be the last priority, after first cutting carbon pollution, adapting to climate change and using carbon removal technologies.
”
“The Global South is paying the price for a problem largely created by rich nations and the voices of the most vulnerable populations aren’t heard enough in the global debate. The discussion is predominately framed by North American scholars.
”
“African nations, home to vast renewable energy potential, proposed $3 trillion in carbon-cutting investment opportunities in accord with the 2015 Paris Agreement but received little money, leaving their leaders is heartened and more willing to delay curbing pollution.
”
More information