The Degrees Initiative co-hosted an official side event at COP29 – the annual meeting of global leaders covering all things climate – to discuss the future of solar radiation modification (SRM) research and policy as the topic rises on the international policy agenda.
‘Solar Radiation Modification: A Conversation on Governance and Research’ was introduced by Anita Nzeh, Policy Engagement Manager at Degrees, Andy Parker, Degrees CEO, and Nana Ama Brown Klutse, Vice-Chair of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), followed by a panel discussion with leaders in climate research and governance.
While rapid reductions in global emissions are – and should remain – the focus of international negotiations on limiting damaging global warming, failure to act quickly or strongly enough has led to the discussion of possible additional measures.
One of these is SRM, which aims to reduce the impacts of global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space. SRM has risks and uncertainties, and researchers try to understand these in the context of the risks and uncertainties of climate change itself.
However, its inclusion in the policy discussion space raises concerns among some that SRM could be used as an excuse to delay emissions reductions. A key question regarding SRM governance, as Andy summarised, is: “Who makes the decisions and how?”
Global South focus
To this end, he described how Degrees works to empower the Global South to actively participate in global discussions on SRM. The NGO currently funds 35 research teams across 22 developing countries, building capacity to study SRM’s potential impacts and social-political dimensions in these regions.
Nana, the principal investigator of a Degrees-funded team, then gave an example of that work, explaining the preliminary results of a study modelling the impact of one type of SRM – injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere – on the seasonal ‘Harmattan’ winds and associated rainfall across West Africa.
In response to a question from the audience on whether it was too soon to bring discussions about SRM to a forum like COP29, given how much we still need to understand, Nana said: “If we don’t discuss this now, when do we discuss it? We should have multiple approaches to the issue of climate change, and if this is one of the potential solutions, why don’t we discuss it even now as we’re discussing other solutions?”
Lesser of two evils?
An ensuing panel discussion was moderated by Matthias Honegger, from the Perspectives Climate Group and the Co-CREATE project.
Hassaan Sipra, Director of Global Engagement at the the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, and a Degrees-funded researcher in a Pakistan team, emphasised the growing civil society interest in SRM. He said: “As it stands, climate change is barrelling down on us with current projections putting us closer to the 3°C range by 2100. We’re not dealing with this in the way we should be, so alternative strategies are going to be explored.
“Whether people are for, or against, or in the middle of the SRM debate, it’s very much about human suffering. It’s about finding the risks of climate change versus the risks of SRM: which one is the lesser of two evils?”
Frameworks for governance
Lisa Graumlich, President of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), highlighted the need for a guide for SRM research and decision making, pointing to her organisation’s recent Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research.
She asserted that SRM must complement, not replace, emission reductions as part of a comprehensive climate strategy. She outlined five key principles contained in the Ethical Framework: responsible research, holistic climate justice, inclusive public participation, transparency, and informed governance through independent review.
Thelma Krug, a science advisor for the Climate Overshoot Commission and former IPCC WGI Vice-Chair, discussed the inclusion of SRM in successive IPCC assessments, noting increased references and research over time but no restrictive language.
The Climate Overshoot Commission’s report Reducing the Risks of Climate Overshoot, she continued, advocates for SRM research and stresses the need for Global South researchers’ involvement.
“Not the time to bury our heads in the sand”
Finally, Jason Jabbour, from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), outlined the rationale for the recent One Atmosphere report, which convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to undertake a rapid review of the state of scientific research on SRM. The report particularly highlighted the lack of evidence around socio-economic implications.
He underscored the importance of scientific review to inform discussions, urging proactive engagement within UNFCCC contexts rather than avoidance: “It is not the time to bury our heads in the sand,” he concluded. Jason’s contribution was particularly welcome, given the recent consideration by the UN Environment Assembly of SRM, as well as the possibility that it may do so again next year.
Participants were from diverse stakeholder groups – including researchers, young people and the policy community – indicating increasing interest in the topic. The Q&A session emphasized the challenges of creating a stable, long-term governance framework for SRM, highlighting concerns about unilateral actions and the dominance of Global North perspectives in research and decision-making.
Listen to the audio recording below or read more about the event in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.
