https://helda.helsinki.fi/items/a0a3a863-a280-4717-88d1-08c8af10a7ea
*Authors* Ellen Aleksandra Haaslahti *2024* *Abstract* The world is approaching 1.5 C of global average temperature rise which marks a limit for ever more severe impacts from climate change. In climate science and policy spheres, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is increasingly being discussed based on its potential to rapidly reduce negative impacts as a complementary approach with decarbonization. Different technological approaches have been suggested to increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected to space. The scientific community is divided regarding potential benefits, risks and concerns linked to SRM, which makes it more difficult to foresee future trajectories and create governance for SRM activities. Understanding how experts perceive SRM research and deployment in relation to the broader range of climate response strategies and goals is important as it has critical policy implications in terms of the future of SRM technologies. This thesis studies the perceptions of climate change experts in Finland focusing on two of the most studied SRM approaches: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB). Real-Time Delphi was applied to gather data among a small expert panel whose arguments were examined with qualitative content analysis through a constructive approach. A process model was produced to describe how 1) scientific and governance conditions, 2) attitudes, beliefs and feelings, 3) environmental and technological concerns, and 4) navigating climate scenarios and response strategies influence expert perceptions on SRM. The experts expressed consistent support for indoor research and small-scale field experiments around the two SRM methods arguing for precautionary approaches regarding climate emergency situations. SRM deployment was largely seen as undesirable. General pessimism towards global governance systems and climate action as well as solving justice issues was highlighted in the study. In the face of such radical uncertainties and social, technical, and ecological concerns, open dialogue about different perceptions on SRM can contribute to reflective, anticipatory, inclusive, and responsive policy making. *Source: Helsinki* -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh98VFJuQYMa-xUdTreXZ1VPkDcLDJ%3Df36YZnEfk%3DeTF0aw%40mail.gmail.com.
