Field tests of solar climate engineering

Was breaking the taboo on research on climate engineering via albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative?

“…Of course, still uncovering major side effects of albedo modification techniques cannot be ruled out, as was already pointed out by Crutzen [] : “The chances of unexpected climate effects should not be underrated, as clearly shown by the sudden and unpredicted development of the antarctic ozone hole.” There is still much to be learned from model studies, and the second phase of GeoMIP and many other independent studies are expected to bring us further important insights. However, to us, going beyond further model studies, these results of the last decade point toward two main future developments: First, a broad, well‐informed sociopolitical dialogue is needed to determine whether humanity as a whole is likely to actually someday provide broad support for the pursuit of full‐fledged climate engineering—and if so, in what forms, for what purposes, and for how long—or if it will be a topic like human cloning or genetic engineering, which is open for general discussion, but under a broad societal taboo for any form of experimental research or steps toward realization. Second, depending partly on how the societal dialogue develops, and in support of a better information basis for what will potentially be a protracted international political debate, it is likely that the scientific community will pursue field experimentation to help clarify many uncertainties; if so, then an adequate public funding and governance framework (in soft and hard forms) urgently needs to be developed [ Morgan et al, ; Parson and Keith, ; Schäfer et al, ; Victor et al, ]. …”

Governing solar geoengineering research as it leaves the laboratory

“…However, there are numerous field experiments that could be done without any significant risks of physical harm, and some people feel that the potential socio-political consequences of outdoors research might be of more immediate concern [10,12]. There is not room enough here to do justice to all the possible sociopolitical concerns (see [24] for a more thorough list), and this paper focuses on three of the most prominent ones: moral hazard, slippery slopes and backlash.…”

“…Some people are concerned that if field research goes ahead without formalized governance, or additional international agreement, there could be a backlash in public or political opinion that would deter funders from SRM research, and set back the R&D agenda [12,16,41].…”

“…For Robock [13], the physical risks are the primary concern and he argues that research should not be allowed to leave the laboratory until there is a mechanism for determining which projects pose acceptably low physical risks. Schäfer et al [12] ask researchers to voluntarily refrain from field tests until there is international agreement as SRM is at heart an international issue. Along with Kruger [14] and King [16], they warn that tests without specific governance risk backlash that might delay or prevent further research.…”

“…It has been made by prominent opponents of geoengineering [8,10,11] and some of the leading geoengineering researchers [12][13][14], as well as high profile commentators including the editors of Nature [15] and former UK Chief Scientific Advisor Sir David King FRS [16].…”