Geoengineering the climate may be possible, but who decides?

Alex Hanafi

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will soon release an important report on the impacts of climate change around the world, including potential responses to adapt to the significant risks presented by a rapidly changing climate.

According to the IPCC, tucked into that report will be a small section addressing the potential impacts of climate engineering (“geoengineering”) technologies. When the IPCC released their last report on the science of climate change, it also included a brief mention of the science of geoengineering, in the last paragraph of the IPCC’s 36-page “Summary for Policymakers.”

What is geoengineering?

As communities and policymakers around the world face the risks presented by a rapidly changing climate, interest in the topic of geoengineering is growing.

Geoengineering refers to a range of techniques for reducing global warming through intervention in the planet’s climate system, by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, or CDR) or by reflecting away a small percentage of inbound sunlight (solar radiation management, or SRM).

Some of these ideas have been proposed by scientists concerned about the lack of political progress in curbing the continued growth in global carbon emissions, and who are looking for other possibilities for addressing climate change if we can’t get emissions under control soon.

With the risks and impacts of rising temperatures already being felt, the fact that solar radiation management would likely be cheap to deploy and fast-acting means that it has attracted particular attention as one possible short-term response to climate change.

The world’s governments tasked the IPCC with investigating these emerging technologies, and three things are clear from the IPCC’s brief analysis:

  1. Carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management might have benefits for the climate system, but they also carry risks, and at this stage it is unknown what the balance of benefits and risks may be. 
  2. The overall effects of solar radiation management for regional and global weather patterns are likely to be uncertain, unpredictable, and broadly distributed across countries. As with climate change itself, there would most likely be winners and losers if solar radiation management technologies were to be used.
  3. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, solar radiation management does not provide an alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, since it does not address the rising emissions that are the root cause of ocean acidification and other non-temperature related climate change impacts.

This last point is particularly important. The most that could be expected from solar radiation management would be to serve as a temporary tool to manage some temperature-related climate risks.

The way forward

No one can predict how solar radiation management research will develop or whether these strategies for managing the short-term implications of climate risk will be helpful or harmful, but early cooperation and transnational, interdisciplinary dialogue on geoengineering research governance will help the global community make informed decisions.

Recognizing these needs, The Royal Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and The World Academy of Sciences launched in 2010 the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) an international NGO-driven initiative to explore how solar radiation management research could be governed. SRMGI is neither for nor against solar radiation management. Instead, it aims to foster inclusive, interdisciplinary, and international discussion on solar radiation management research and governance.

SRMGI’s activities are founded on a simple idea: That early and sustained dialogue among diverse stakeholders around the world, informed by the best available science, will increase the chances of solar radiation management research being handled responsibly, equitably, and cooperatively.

But it’s worth remembering that the IPCC devoted only one paragraph of its last 36-page summary report to geoengineering. So while discussion about geoengineering technologies and governance is necessary, the key message from the IPCC must not be lost: It’s time to recognize that the billions of tons of carbon pollution we put in our atmosphere every year are causing dangerous changes to our climate, and we need to work together to find the best ways to reduce that pollution.

This post is adapted from an earlier entry on our Climate Talks blog.


I am totally opposed to modifying the atmosphere by poisoning the people. If that was such a good idea why is it secret and there is no public debate? Some day you all will answer to a higher power for what you are doing.

Patrick Greenshield
March 26, 2014 at 10:10 am

" It’s time to recognize that the billions of tons of carbon pollution we put in our atmosphere every year are causing dangerous changes to our climate, and we need to work together to find the best ways to reduce that pollution."

Two proven ways for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (CDR):

The Man Who Planted Trees: Lost Groves, Champion Trees, and an Urgent Plan to Save the Planet -…

Sustainable Land Development Goes Carbon Negative -

March 26, 2014 at 10:31 am

Any denial that SRM is already underway, and has been for a while now, is either ignorance or deceit. Our skies are periodically laced with particulates which seed clouds. The results of the research are already understood, and it is now just a means of asset-grabbing, land clearance and probably population control.

Allowing private corporations to fund and profit from the project was, and is an act of criminality.

simon turner
March 26, 2014 at 1:49 pm

The scientific community and global governments are talking about SRM and Geoengineering as if they are not ALREADY doing it. They have been doing it for several years!! And while it may be a "cheap and easy" temporary solution,as it is dimming the sun, it is having enormous consequences on human health and the overall environment!!! Spraying aluminum, barium and numerous other toxins into the air to comat pollution is NOT THE ANSWER!!!! They arr only making the problem worse!!! And polluting every aspect of life on earth!!!!! Go to for a list of patents and documents that verify all this!! And look up!!!!

March 27, 2014 at 10:51 am

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response, Lewis.

Your post brings up important scientific questions about the warming to which we have already committed the planet, and the risks associated with possible thresholds or “tipping points” in the climate system. In addition to the regular reports on climate science and policy from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The Royal Society’s report on geoengineering tackles some of the questions you pose, and is a useful resource on the science of geoengineering.

You are right to suggest that definitions of “geoengineering” and its associated technologies continue to be debated, and probably will be for some time. While SRMGI focuses on governance of research into solar geoengineering (“solar radiation management” (SRM)), other initiatives examine governance of a wider range of geoengineering approaches, including CDR. Since CDR and SRM differ in their techniques and potential impacts, it’s worth considering how the governance regimes needed for them may differ.

You also bring up key questions about the appropriate forums and timing for governance of geoengineering research (and possible deployment). Who participates, who decides, at what time, and based on what criteria?

The current patchwork of international institutions does not provide a comprehensive governance framework for geoengineering research or deployment. For a survey of the existing landscape of institutions, and treaties that may be most relevant to SRM governance, see Appendix III of SRMGI’s report “Solar Radiation Management: the governance of research.

International governance regimes for geoengineering research and (if decided at a later date) deployment may be desirable, but are more likely to be effective if the groundwork is prepared by informed discussions among diverse constituencies at the local, sub-national, national, and regional level. That’s why SRMGI focuses on expanding the conversation about SRM research governance to regions and where public engagement with geoengineering science and policy is currently low, but potential impacts from any geoengineering activities and climate change might be high. Engaging with key stakeholders in these settings should help create the conditions necessary for a considered and cooperative future international dialogue on more formalized systems of governance.

For instance, SRMGI has collaborated with academic and non-governmental organizations to host a series of regional workshops about SRM research governance, including in Singapore, India, China, and Pakistan. In 2012 and 2013, SRMGI and the African Academy of Sciences hosted workshops in Senegal, South Africa and Ethiopia. Participants in SRMGI workshops in Africa are exploring the possibility of establishing expert working groups and SRM research governance “centers of excellence” in African universities. You can read more about the African workshops here.

Efforts to build local capacity will help developing countries to make their own decisions about SRM research governance, informed by their own experts and stakeholders. In turn, linkages among well-informed local efforts focused on establishing appropriate research governance mechanisms may assist with the cooperative development of a set of “Model Governance Guidelines” or other more formalized systems at the international level.

The next report from the IPCC, scheduled to be released next week, will focus on mitigation of climate change, and should shed more light on some of the questions you pose. It will assess “all relevant options” to reduce emissions and enhance removal of carbon from the atmosphere. While it is expected to include further analysis of geoengineering technologies, it will focus on the global community’s options to tackle the key challenge that we face: reducing our climate pollution.

Thanks again for your post, Lewis.

Alex Hanafi
April 10, 2014 at 3:51 pm

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.