https://www.c2g2.net/wp-content/uploads/20220210-C2G-Global-SRM-Activity-Update.pdf?utm_content=199869779
*Status of global activities on solar radiation modification and its governance* *Briefing note prepared by the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) summarising some key insights into global activities on solar radiation modification and its governance* *Summary * With climate impacts intensifying and international climate action incommensurate with the risks faced now and in future3 , more uncertain climate response measures such as solar radiation modification (SRM) are coming under increasing scrutiny. This briefing summarises the status of research and discussions around SRM and its governance, covering two prominent techniques which propose to increase levels of sunlight reflected away from the Earth’s surface to reduce levels of warming. The first, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) aims to disperse reflective particles in the stratosphere, and the second, marine cloud brightening (MCB) aims to enhance and brighten ocean cloud cover4 . Recent scientific assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that while some SRM techniques may be theoretically effective, the risks or benefits they pose are poorly understood and relevant governance is weak or missing5 . Outdoor MCB experiments were conducted in 2020, and in 2021 planned SAI-related experiments were again cancelled following objections from Indigenous people and environmental groups. Recent IPCC and other strategic foresight assessments indicate that the risk of ungoverned SRM deployment is potentially becoming a cause for concern and with the issue now emerging in intergovernmental processes, the international discussion about SRM and its governance is gathering increasing momentum. *Status of research * • SRM-related research is underway internationally. While not yet systematically tracked, notable examples include the USD$16.2m Harvard Solar Geoengineering Program which is planning the world’s first outdoor experiments to advance understanding of SAI (SCoPEx), and part of the AUS$100m Australian funded Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP) which in 2020 undertook the first outdoor MCB experiment to test a delivery mechanism to spray nano-sized sea-salt particles into the air above the reef. In 2021, the €9.1m EU-funded GENIE project begin exploring transdisciplinary dimensions of SRM and in 2019 the US Congress approved USD$4m for stratospheric research including SRM interventions. A recent US National Academies of Science report (2021) recommended USD$100-200m for new SRM research (including research governance). The Silver Lining safe climate research initiative supports physical science SRM research programmes in various US research institutions as well as the DECIMALS fund which has been administering small grants to teams of developing country researchers modelling how SRM could affect their regions. In 2021, a consortia of European research institutes led by a German technology company, established a geoengineering network for interdisciplinary cooperation and discussion. • Previous SRM-related research has been supported by public and private investment in Australia, Canada, China, Finland, the EU, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, India, Sweden, the UK, and the US. This analysis includes 6 (entirely or in part): Germany’s €10.5m Climate engineering project (2016-2019); China’s €2m government funded geoengineering research programme (2015–19); the UK’s €1.7m Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) programme (2010–14) and €1.5m Climate Geoengineering Governance project (2012-14); and the EU’s €1.3m Implications and Risks of Engineering Solar Radiation to Limit Climate Change programme (IMPLICC) (2009-2012). Published literature on the topic is steadily increasing (see bibliography) and for over a decade an international collaboration of researchers (GeoMIP) has been comparing models to better understand expected climate effects of SRM. Researchers continue to collaborate and share learning via e.g. journal special issues, conferences and dedicated online fora. • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been addressing SRM. The IPCC convened a first expert meeting covering SRM (2012) and its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C (2018) noted many uncertainties and knowledge gaps remain. At the request of governments, the IPCC included SRM in its Sixth Assessment Working Group 1 report (2021) with more expected in the Working Group 2 and 3 reports (forthcoming, early 2022). • Other initial assessments of SRM research have been undertaken, for example by the US National Academies of Science (2021; 2015); by IGRC for the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (2020); the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP, 2019); the UN Environment Programme Ozone Secretariat (UNEP, 2018); the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2016; 2012); the European Union (2015); the UK Research Council (2013), House of Commons (2010), and Royal Society (2009). • Areas for future SRM research to address knowledge gaps have been identified by various actors including: the IPCC (2021; 2018); US National Academies of Science (2021; 2015); GESAMP (2019); C2G (2018); Parties to the Montreal Protocol (2018) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2016). • Objections to SRM research highlight the importance of research governance. In early 2022 a group of academics launched an initiative calling for governments to ban funding for SRM experiments and development. In 2021, outdoor experiments planned in Sweden as part of the Harvard SCoPEx project were halted by the Swedish Space Agency following objections by Indigenous people and environmental NGOs. The governance of SRM research has been addressed in the development of tools such as the Oxford Principles and the Code of conduct for responsible geoengineering research and the importance of robust SRM research governance is widely emphasised, including in the US National Academies of Science report (2021). *Status of international discussion* • SRM is increasingly appearing on the agenda of intergovernmental processes, for example, in 2019 a Swiss-led resolution submitted to the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) during its 4th meeting proposed UNEP prepare an assessment of SRM (following extensive discussion it was withdrawn due to lack of consensus); in 2021 the UN Interagency Task Team on Science, Technology and Innovation (IATT) included SRM implications for the SDGs in its report to the UN’s STI Forum; and during 2021-22, the UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology plans to address ethical dimensions of SRM (UNESCO previously convened an expert meeting on SRM in 2010). • SRM is increasingly appearing on the radar of strategic foresight assessments such as the latest US National Intelligence estimate (2021) that noted the risk of unilateral geoengineering increasing, or the latest World Economic Forum Global Risks report (2022) which highlights the potential geopolitical risks of ungoverned SRM. In 2021, the Paris Peace Forum established an initiative called the Global Commission on Governing Risks from Climate Overshoot, that plans to prepare a report in 2023 addressing SRM. • Non-governmental and civil society organisations continue to be engaged around SRM. Some, like the DEGREES Initiative or SilverLining actively promote SRM-related research or cautiously call for more, like the Union of Concerned Scientists or the American Geophysical Union. Others are critical or opposed, such as the Climate Action Network International (CAN), the Heinrich Böll Foundation, or the ETC Group. In early 2022 a group of academics called for an international non-use agreement for SRM, echoing similar concerns made by prominent international environmental campaigners in 2021, and established campaigns such as Hands off Mother Earth and Geoengineering Monitor. Other actors are focussing on promoting policy-dialogue, such as the Council on Energy Environment and Water (CEEW) which has convened conferences and briefings in India, or the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) that works to catalyse the creation of effective international governance. *For further information * • Further information and learning resources available on C2G’s website: www.c2g2.net • Contact for information: [email protected] -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpajC2rsQiyRNh52pKi6et8ipff42g_iajUvt79m2DsBFw%40mail.gmail.com.
