https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-025-04059-3
*Authirs: *Britta Clark *10 November 2025* *Abstract* It is increasingly common to hear solar geoengineering compared to opioids. I argue that probing this analogy can help us appreciate the following surprising point: Common arguments for solar geoengineering, if taken to their logical conclusion, imply that the technology should be used to slow the pace of emissions reductions. Indeed, Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)—a widely used and influential climate policy tool—produce the same result. This conclusion is striking because, if there is one area of consensus across debates about solar geoengineering, it is that the technology should not be used as a ‘substitute for’ or to ‘delay’ the energy transition. I argue that we can make sense of this apparent tension by recognizing that different parties to the solar geoengineering debate have different conceptions of the kind of ‘substitution’ or ‘delay’ to be avoided. The surface-level consensus that solar geoengineering should not substitute for emissions reductions thus masks an important dispute: How does the prospect of solar geoengineering influence the speed of emissions cuts we should aim for? In the final pages of the paper, I’ll return to the opioids analogy to briefly draw out the implications of answering this question in the way recommended by IAMs. In short, we risk adopting an approach to solar geoengineering policy that advances our own interests at the expense of locking those that follow us into a form of addiction. *Source: Springer Nature Link * -- 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/CAHJsh9_WaMmTJp2M9g4a4ab6Fq%3DeRk3QP1-ubT1pxo5-X5zPQA%40mail.gmail.com.
