Read more<\/p>
Want the full picture? Explore our\u00a0geoengineering hub<\/a>\u00a0to read more about this topic.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n Most proposed technologies are still in their infancy. But with a number of experiments currently in the pipeline<\/a> there is an urgent need to fill a glaring gap in who should oversee solar geoengineering, or where nations should even discuss its use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is definitely not sufficient governance,\u201d says Linda Schneider, a climate policy expert at the Heinrich B\u00f6ll Foundation. \u201cIt\u2019s certainly not an easy question of where geoengineering could best be governed in its entirety.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Solar geoengineering is a range of hypothetical techniques capable of increasing the reflection of sunlight before it warms the Earth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stratospheric aerosol injection, the most prominent proposal, aims to mimic the effects of a volcano by injecting sulphate particles into the stratosphere to reflect some incoming sunlight. Marine cloud brightening, another technique, aims to increase the reflectivity of marine clouds by introducing more cloud-forming particles. Neither technology has yet been proven to work. Harvard University plans a small-scale stratospheric aerosol injection experiment<\/a> in Sweden this year using a high-altitude balloon, although just this week the Swedish Space Corporation announced<\/a> it had decided not to conduct the test. Australia, meanwhile, is pursuing<\/a> a cloud-brightening project to better understand if it could be used to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Neither are wide-scale deployments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics have long warned<\/a> against the potentially devastating impacts \u2013 and politically fraught decisions \u2013 that solar geoengineering could entail. The strategy by no means addresses all the impacts of climate change: for example, ocean acidification caused by excess CO2 would still continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is the so-called \u201cmoral hazard\u201d concern that a focus on geoengineering will reduce the imperative to cut emissions in the first place, and take up resources that could have been used to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there is the risk of \u201ctermination shock\u201d. For example, aerosols released into the stratosphere via balloons or aeroplanes would only remain there for a limited time before gravity takes effect. If deployment is abruptly stopped for some reason, temperatures would rise rapidly. Jesse Reynolds, fellow at University of California, Los Angeles, says the easiest way to prevent termination shock is to have multiple, secure systems operating via different methods and institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Solar geoengineering could also impact food production and the hydrological cycle, says Paulo Artaxo, a professor of environmental physics at the University of S\u00e3o Paulo. The distribution of aerosol particles would not be even across the world, leading to differing radiation between regions and changed atmospheric circulation across the planet. It could potentially cause acid rain, and damage the ozone layer. And more locally targeted measure such as marine cloud brightening could also affect regional weather systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The geopolitical risks are major. States could react aggressively to other countries carrying out solar geoengineering without an international consensus. A country could in theory unilaterally decide to deploy it, as Kim Stanley Robinson portrays India doing, after a catastrophic heatwave, in his recent novel The Ministry of The Future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some experts argue even small-scale experiments should have to wait until a robust, international governance mechanism is in place, or should be banned completely. For example, in February, Swedish groups including Saami people’s organisations wrote an open letter to the Advisory Board of Harvard\u2019s SCoPEx<\/a>, noting both the \u201crisks of catastrophic consequences\u201d of solar aerosol injection and the project\u2019s \u201cserious problems in terms of governance and decision-making\u201d. It was in response to these and other concerns that Sweden\u2019s space agency recently cancelled the test flight planned for the summer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There has been limited focus so far on developing this governance. A decision adopted back in 2010 by the Convention on Biological Diversity asked states to refrain from deploying solar geoengineering that might affect biodiversity and called for a transparent and democratic global governance mechanism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere\u2019s a lot of debate about the legal status of this decision, but from our perspective it is a de facto moratorium,\u201d says Schneider.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers have tried to begin to fill this governance gap. For example, the influential set of five \u201cOxford Principles\u201d<\/a> includes public participation, governance before deployment and independent impact assessment. Meanwhile, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine last week came out in favour of a US solar geoengineering research program, saying this should \u201caim to enhance policymakers\u2019 understanding of climate response options\u201d. However, this research \u201cshould not be designed to advance future deployment of these interventions\u201d, it said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the absence of an international body, deciding who would have decision-making power, and where they would negotiate, is extremely challenging. International rules are almost entirely consent based, says Reynolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The closest to a supranational body that could adequately deal with the issues is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But it has so far largely avoided the topic, and it\u2019s not clear its remit could cover the area robustly enough. \u201cDiscussing it there may interfere with already contentious international discussions about reducing and eventually eliminating greenhouse gas emissions,\u201d says Reynolds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A resolution<\/a> proposed by Switzerland at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) in 2019 asked the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the methods and evidence of solar geoengineering and outline possible future governance, but it failed to pass. The UNEA was \u201ca useful place to start\u201d since it has a broader environmental impact perspective than the UNFCCC and geoengineering has so many risks not necessarily linked to climate, says Schneider, pointing to concerns over the potential militarisation of some technologies. Others<\/a> have pushed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to produce a special report on solar geoengineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Governance could feasibly be debated at the UN Security Council but the council is dominated by nuclear powers so 196 nations would be left without a voice, says Artaxo of the University of S\u00e3o Paulo. The Overseas Development Institute (ODI), among others, has warned<\/a> about the implications of a possible \u201cemergency\u201d intervention being made by the council or another body which lacks the technical expertise, representation and mandate to take such \u201cpotentially irreversible planetary-level decisions\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Schneider says one solution would be to establish an entirely new body for solar geoengineering governance, potentially using a similar governance mechanism as the London Convention and Protocol<\/a> does for marine waste and other pollution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN General Assembly should set up a new, fully representative body to analyse the scientific issues, with the power to authorise specific geoengineering experiments, says Artaxo of the University of S\u00e3o Paulo. \u201cIn a second stage, if any of the techniques proved safe and effective, then it [could] start discussion on implementation,\u201d he says. \u201cBut of course, it’s very, very early to discuss any implementation issues.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Reynolds argues that aiming too high, such as by establishing a decision-making body that could prohibit solar geoengineering outside of its authority, runs the risk of powerful countries such as the US, China or India simply refusing to sign up. \u201cA model along the lines of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which offers a forum for information exchange, the development of best practices, a response to emergencies and some degree of policy coordination would be more of an \u201coptimal middle,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is crucial that any scientific research into solar geoengineering involves developing countries, says Artaxo. In a 2018 comment piece<\/a> in Nature, Artaxo and others outlined how developing nations are being side-lined when it comes to solar geoengineering research and debates, despite often being the countries with most to gain or lose. \u201cIt is right, politically and morally, for the Global South to have a central role in solar-geoengineering research, discussion and evaluation,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The ODI report from 2017 emphasised the need for more support for developing countries to assess the costs and benefits of geoengineering, including the potential for unintended consequences. They also need support to strengthen the capacity to measure impacts within their borders \u2013 tricky to do in the absence of baseline atmospheric measurements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One group trying to expand the scope of governance of solar geoengineering research is the Solar Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI),<\/a> which aims to build the capacity of developing countries to evaluate the practice. The body arranges outreach meetings with local partners, while its Decimals fund<\/a> provides grants to scientists in the Global South modelling how solar geoengineering could affect their regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\nImminent experiments increase underlying concerns<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Stratospheric](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Stratospheric-aerosol-injection-china-dialogue-geoengineering-e1600796814384.jpg\")
<\/div>Which international body might fit the bill?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"solar](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Airplane-Contrails_C6EJWA-scaled.jpg\")
<\/div>If, for instance, the hydrological cycle over India completely messed up, who will pay for the damage to the Indian continent?<\/blockquote>Paulo Artaxo, a professor of environmental physics at the University of S\u00e3o Paulo<\/cite><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n