03 APRIL 2018
Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research
The nations that are most vulnerable to climate change must drive 
discussions of modelling, ethics and governance, argue A. Atiq Rahman, 
Paulo Artaxo, Asfawossen Asrat, Andy Parker and 8 co-signatories.

People in the global south are on the front line of climate change. As 
global temperatures creep upwards, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) is forecasting rising seas eroding small island states1 
<>, declining 
food production in many regions of Asia2 
<>, water stress 
across Africa3 <> and 
major loss of biodiversity in South America4 

Developing countries have spoken out on climate policy. Links between 
climate justice and development are now accepted, as is the idea that 
nations have common responsibilities — emitters are liable for impacts felt 
elsewhere. Despite having emitted very little greenhouse gas themselves, 
the world’s least-developed countries and small-island states demanded that 
the 2015 Paris climate agreement require warming to be kept “well below” 2 
°C, and that a 1.5 °C limit should also be explored.

But there is a limit to what populations threatened by sea-level rise, 
biodiversity loss, droughts and hurricanes can do. Mitigation of climate 
change is crucial. The emissions cuts agreed in Paris are not enough — they 
will take the world to a 3 °C rise (see Adaptation 
is therefore essential. As the scale of the damage grows, more countries 
will turn to the “loss and damage” provisions in the Paris agreement. And 
these are vague: who should pay how much, and to whom, for lost farming or 
fishing livelihoods? What size of cheque would compensate for the 
destruction of coral reefs?

In that context, solar geoengineering — injecting aerosol particles into 
the stratosphere to reflect away a little inbound sunlight — is being 
discussed as a way to cool the planet, fast. The technique is 
controversial, and rightly so. It is too early to know what its effects 
would be: it could be very helpful or very harmful. Developing countries 
have most to gain or lose. In our view, they must maintain their climate 
leadership and play a central part in research and discussions around solar 

High stakes

Solar geoengineering is outlandish and unsettling. It invokes technologies 
that are redolent of science fiction — jets lacing the stratosphere with 
sunlight-blocking particles, and fleets of ships spraying seawater into 
low-lying clouds to make them whiter and brighter to reflect sunlight. Yet, 
if such approaches could be realized technically and politically, they 
could slow, stop or even reverse the rise in global temperatures within one 
or two years. No other way of doing this has been conceived. Removing 
greenhouse gases from the air would take decades, if it is even possible.

A decade of modelling research indicates that solar geoengineering might 
reduce many of the worst effects of climate change if deployed in 
moderation. For example, injecting 5 megatonnes of sulfur dioxide into the 
stratosphere — about one-quarter of that released by Mount Pinatubo’s 
eruption in 1991 — each year could keep warming below 2 °C. (However, there 
are likely to be limits to how much cooling can be achieved, especially 
under high greenhouse-gas emissions scenarios5 
<>.) Studies have 
found that solar geoengineering should also be able to reduce climate 
impacts on hydrology, redressing trends in which wet regions get wetter and 
dry regions get drier6 
<>. Lower 
temperatures would slow global sea-level rise7 
<> and could curb 
the increasing incidence and strength of tropical cyclones8 

A decade ago, there were serious concerns that solar geoengineering might 
produce stark winners and losers and might disrupt the monsoons. Research 
has allayed these worries. For example, it seems conceivable that moderate 
solar geoengineering would benefit many regions that are vulnerable to 
climate change, with few losers. Monsoon rains would be affected less than 
if climate change proceeds unchecked9 

But solar geoengineering is no panacea; it could compound some risks of 
climate change. It would only mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases. 
Ocean acidification would still pose a threat to marine life if 
carbon-dioxide emissions were not slashed. Sulfur dioxide might delay ozone 
regeneration in the stratosphere. And whichever aerosol was used to filter 
out sunlight, more research would be needed on its impacts on health and 
the environment.

The overall effects of solar geoengineering are uncertain. All studies so 
far are based on computer simulations, which are poor at forecasting 
regional climates, for example. The Earth system might hold surprises that 
digital models do not capture. The projections require thorough and 
sceptical examination.

Furthermore, solar geoengineering raises difficult socio-political issues 
that cannot be wished away. It is uncertain how, or whether, the technique 
could be governed in ways that ensure prudence, accountability and justice. 
Who has the right to implement an inherently global technology? Would the 
technology weaken multilateral commitments to reduce emissions such as the 
Paris agreement?

These issues matter deeply to developing nations. But most 
solar-geoengineering research is being done in the well-heeled universities 
of Europe and North America. Unless that changes, voices from the global 
north will set the policy agenda and decide which research projects should 
be accelerated or shut down.

We are neutral on whether solar geoengineering should ever be used. It has 
not yet been established whether it would be a beneficial addition to 
meeting the Paris goals. We recognize its potential physical risks and 
socio-political implications. And we oppose its deployment until research 
into its safety and effectiveness has been completed and 
international-governance mechanisms established. But we are committed to 
the co-production of research and to well-informed debate.

Others have already taken sides. Some people in the global north have tried 
to convince their peers in the south that they should reject solar 
geoengineering. Campaigners who vehemently oppose it often make their case 
by emphasizing the risks and playing down the potential benefits10 
<>. We take 
issue with this paternalism and propose an inclusive way forward.

Big decisions

Developing countries must be in a position to make up their own minds. 
Local scientists, in collaboration with others, need to conduct research 
that is sensitive to regional concerns and conditions. For example, what 
effects might solar geoengineering have on hurricanes in the Caribbean, 
flooding in Bangladesh or agriculture in East Africa? Broader discussions 
among academics, policymakers, the public and public intellectuals are 
needed on climate risks and justice.

To begin this process, we (and the co-signatories of this Comment) have 
been running solar-geoengineering engagement workshops across the global 
south — the first of their kind — as part of the SRM Governance Initiative 
(SRMGI), in which SRM stands for solar radiation management. International 
and non-governmental, SRMGI was launched in 2010 by the Royal Society in 
London, The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) in Trieste, Italy, and the 
Environmental Defense Fund in New York City. The regional workshops — held 
mostly in the past three years in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, 
India, Jamaica, Kenya, Thailand, New Zealand (for the Pacific states), 
Pakistan and the Philippines — have brought together local climate 
scientists, journalists, policymakers and representatives of civil society 
to learn about and discuss solar geoengineering.

Participants had no consensus position on the technology. But they raised 
common hopes and concerns. In general, we found widespread opposition to 
deployment at this stage, but support for studies of local impacts. As a 
participant at the Nairobi workshop put it: “This idea is crazy … but we 
have to understand it.” Many were sceptical about whether the methods would 
work and if developing countries, rather than more powerful governments, 
would have any say in how and whether solar geoengineering is deployed.

To fund regional research, this week, SRMGI issues the first call for 
applications to a US$400,000 fund called Developing Country Impacts 
Modelling Analysis for SRM (DECIMALS). The fund is administered by TWAS and 
financed by the Open Philanthropy Project, a foundation backed by Cari Tuna 
and Dustin Moskovitz (co-founder of Facebook and the project-management app 
Asana). Developing-world scientists can apply to DECIMALS for funds to 
model the solar-geoengineering impacts that matter most to their regions. 
International collaborations will be supported and researchers will be 
asked to run local workshops to promote wider discussion of the 
implications of their findings.

Further outreach and research in the developing world will require extra 
support from governments, universities and civil society worldwide. 
Research funders in advanced economies should fund collaborations with 
scientists in developing countries. We would like to see an IPCC special 
report on the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering. Ultimately, a 
coordinated global research initiative — perhaps under an organization such 
as the World Climate Research Programme — is needed to promote 
collaborative science on this controversial issue.

Solar geoengineering is fraught with risks and can never be an alternative 
to mitigation. But it’s unclear whether the risks of solar geoengineering 
are greater than the risks of breaking the 1.5 °C warming target. As things 
stand, politicians will face this dismal dilemma within a couple of 
decades. It is right, politically and morally, for the global south to have 
a central role in solar-geoengineering research, discussion and evaluation.

Nature 556, 22-24 (2018)
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03917-8

On Wednesday, April 4, 2018 at 3:55:21 AM UTC+1, Alan Robock wrote:
> FYI. 
> Alan
> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>    Editor, *Reviews of Geophysics*
> Department of Environmental Sciences                      Phone: 
> +1-848-932-5751
> Rutgers University                                                         
>   Fax: +1-732-932-8644
> 14 College Farm Road                                E-mail: 
> <javascript:>
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA           
> ☮   2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN! 
> Watch my 18 min TEDx talk at
> Sent from my iPad
> Begin forwarded message:
> *From:* SRMGI < <javascript:>>
> *Date:* April 3, 2018 at 7:59:34 PM MDT
> *To:* < <javascript:>>
> *Subject:* *DECIMALS Fund – call for proposals opens today*
> *Reply-To:* SRMGI < <javascript:>>
> Call for proposals opens today 
> The SRM Governance Initiative is proud to announce the opening of the call 
> for proposals for a major new SRM modelling fund for developing country 
> scientists: the DECIMALS Fund (Developing Country Impacts Modelling 
> Analysis for SRM). DECIMALS will support scientists from the Global South 
> who want to analyse how SRM geoengineering might affect their regions.
> DECIMALS is the first fund of its kind and it features in a Comment 
> <>
> that’s published today in Nature, where a group of eminent Southern 
> scholars and NGO leaders call for developing countries to play a central 
> role in SRM research and discussion.
> Grants of up to USD$70k will support scientists as they explore the 
> climate impacts that matter most locally, from droughts to cyclones to 
> extreme temperatures to precipitation changes. The DECIMALS Fund aims to go 
> beyond research: its wider goals include capacity-building, 
> community-building, and expanding the conversation around SRM. DECIMALS 
> research teams will therefore receive financial support to attend 
> conferences, to collaborate with each other and with SRM modelling experts, 
> and to discuss their findings with their local communities at the end of 
> their projects.
> Note that applicants do not need to be experts in SRM at the time of 
> application, as there has been little research on this across the Global 
> South to date. See here 
> <>
> for full information about the grants, applicant eligibility, and the 
> application process. The call is open from now until *29 May 2018.*
> Please do pass this along contacts and colleagues who might be interested 
> in applying, and feel free to circulate it on departmental or professional 
> email groups.
> The SRMGI team
> This email was sent to * <javascript:>*. Want to 
> change how you receive these emails? You can update 
> <>
> your preferences or unsubscribe 
> <>
> from this list. Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative . 
> Kienitzer Str. 100 . Berlin 12049 . Germany
> [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] 
> <>

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to