In a new co-authored article in WIREs Climate Change, SIS Professor and Associate Dean for Research Simon Nicholson proposes an alternative near-term pathway to build a more globally inclusive conversation on solar geoengineering and its governance.

The article is in response to a prominent recent perspective article in the same journal that proposed a broad international “non-use agreement” (NUA) on activities related to solar geoengineering (SG). The NUA calls on governments to renounce large-scale use of SG, and also to refuse to fund SG research, ban outdoor experiments, decline to grant IP rights, and reject discussions of SG in international organizations.

Nicholson and his co-authors argue that such pre-emptive rejection of public research and consultation would deprive future policy-makers of knowledge and capability that would support informed decisions to safely and equitably limit climate risk, sustain human welfare, and protect threatened ecosystems.

In contrast to the broad prohibitions of the NUA, they propose an alternative near-term pathway with five elements: assess SG risks and benefits in the context of related climate risks and responses; distinguish the risks and governance needs of SG research and deployment; pursue research that treats uncertainties and divergent results even-handedly; harness normalization of SG as a path to effective assessment and governance; and build a more globally inclusive conversation on SG and its governance. These principles would support a more informed, responsible, and inclusive approach to limiting climate risks, including judgments on the potential role or rejection of SG, than the prohibitory approach of the NUA.

Read the full article here.

Parson, E. A., Buck, H. J., Jinnah, S., Moreno-Cruz, J., & Nicholson, S. (2024). Toward an evidence-informed, responsible, and inclusive debate on solar geoengineering: A response to the proposed non-use agreement. WIREs Climate Change, e903. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.903