Hi All, I am considering creating a paper or article which systematically responds to points made by Bruggnik et.al. Her paper is a sociological analysis of opposition to SRM, not an evaluation of technology, or why it may be required to avoid tipping points. Anybody interested in co-authoring? Thanks! Tom Jackson
*a sociological analysis of opposition to SRM*, not a comprehensive evaluation of the technology On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 7:04 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Herb > > > > Thanks for sharing this. I was listening today to Nate Hagen’s latest > podcast <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArHrLzkJm_k&t=3832s>, on Human > Exceptionalism, where these arguments against geoengineering came up. I > have attached a comment I made at the YouTube link. > > > > The problem with this paper by Biermann et al is that these ideological > opponents of geoengineering have seriously confused ideas about ethics and > science. Many just fail to recognise that if we do not restore albedo we > face inevitable collapse. And as Eliot Jacobson explained > <https://groups.google.com/g/healthy-planet-action-coalition/c/WlITGE4bHL8/m/P4onueAtAAAJ> > in my illuminating conversation with him, many think collapse would be a > good thing, so don’t want to delay it by reflecting sunlight. None of > their arguments stack up as a case to ban testing. They are literally > condemning the world to a new dark age. What this all means is that these > opponents are outside the frame of effective constituencies for climate > action. As such, it may be best to ignore them, and focus instead on > allying with people who want to achieve a realistic path to stabilising the > planetary climate. The strong influence of these anti-cooling ideas means > what is needed is to construct a well-funded advocacy program that can > combat the disinformation they spread in the public domain. > > > > Regards > > > > Robert Tulip > > > > *From:* [email protected] < > [email protected]> *On Behalf Of *H simmens > *Sent:* Thursday, 12 March 2026 2:57 AM > *To:* healthy-planet-action-coalition < > [email protected]>; Planetary Restoration < > [email protected]>; geoengineering < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [HPAC] Why do actors oppose the development and use of solar > Geoengineering technologies > > > > A recently published paper describes eight reasons why the authors claim > that opposition to solar geoengineering is growing. > > > > Unless those supportive of direct cooling can mount convincing arguments > against these concerns supporters of cooling will remain on the defensive. > > > > I am not aware of any paper or article that attempts to systematically > respond to each of these concerns. > > > > “Why do actors oppose the development and potential future use of solar > geoengineering technologies? This article maps and analyzes growing > opposition to the development of planetary-scale solar geoengineering > technologies among three actor groups—govern- > > ments, civil society and academics. > > > > While much social science research on such technolo- > > gies has addressed questions of feasibility, acceptance, legality, the > desirability of more research or hypothetical governance designs, hardly > any empirical analyses exist of the opposition to these technologies. > > > > Drawing on numerous policy documents, civil society > > declarations and academic statements, this article identifies eight > diverse rationales that underpin current opposition from governments, > intergovernmental bodies, civil society > > and academic communities to solar geoengineering. > > > > These rationales include: > > > > concerns about: > > > > risks and uncertainties of potential solar geoengineering schemes, > > > > their failure to address the root causes of climate change, > > > > risks of delaying mitigation, > > > > likely violations of international law, > > > > entrenchment of unjust power relations, > > > > presumed ungovernability, > > > > technological hubris, and the > > > > violation of the Earth’s integrity. > > > > Our analysis also finds evi- > > dence of cross-fertilization among these rationales and a gradual > normalization of a global‘non-use’ discourse. > > > > Overall, these critical perspectives increasingly shape the normative and > political terrain within which solar geoengineering is being deliberated.” > > > > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-026-04131-6.pdf > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" 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/healthy-planet-action-coalition/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/35734EAD-B6FF-4761-B42B-54282A33D6DC%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/00ec01dcb1c4%248b080fe0%24a1182fa0%24%40rtulip.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CADCoCqg0VyK9EZ2T%3DoBNzOBPCT88BDy%3D8SpUEGnEfe%3D1BxyPWw%40mail.gmail.com.
