Social science research to inform solar geoengineering

Abstract

What are the benefits and drawbacks, and for whom?

Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems

“…Some researchers have highlighted how these types of intervention can create placebos that distract attention from systemic problems, allowing us to continue the same economic and technological behaviours that got us here in the first place, and potentially creating a whole new system that we have no idea how to control 47,48 . Other experts question the role of science advocacy in these technologies and call for more cautious use of public and private investment [49][50][51] .…”

How Negative Frames Can Undermine Public Support for Studying Solar Geoengineering in the U.S

“…McLaren and Corry (2021) noted that solar geoengineering research itself could condition policy outcomes, calling for a "reflexive research governance regime developed with international participation" and encompassing the social sciences. Keith (2021) suggested a taxonomy on which "constructive disagreements" about solar geoengineering research could be organized, and Aldy et al (2021) suggested a research agenda that would include the social sciences. To date, there have been few studies on the public's views concerning doing research on, funding research for, or implementing solar geoengineering technologies (Bellamy et al, 2016;Buck, 2016;Merk et al, 2016;Wagner and Merk, 2019;Nelson et al, 2021).…”

PInc-PanTher estimates of Arctic permafrost soil carbon under the GeoMIP G6solar and G6sulfur experiments

“…Solar geoengineering (SG), a class of methods that limit or reverse anthropogenic climate change by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching Earth, has the potential to change Earth's climate, moderating climate hazards compared with pure greenhouse gas (GHG) scenarios (Irvine et al, 2019). The principal advantage of SG over CO2 removal and substantial emission reductions is that temperatures can be reduced far faster; SG may also face fewer technical and financial hurdles (Aldy et al, 2021). In any case given that the potential damage caused by geoengineering has not yet been fully explored (Zarnetske et al, 2021), we recognize that the best option for mitigating climate change is to aggressively cut GHG emissions by switching to clean energy sources.…”

“…In any case given that the potential damage caused by geoengineering has not yet been fully explored (Zarnetske et al, 2021), we recognize that the best option for mitigating climate change is to aggressively cut GHG emissions by switching to clean energy sources. It makes sense, however, to explore SG as a potential tool to avoid catastrophic climate change and is especially pertinent due to the rapidly growing profile of geoengineering within the scientific and policy community (Aldy et al, 2021;Keith, 2021). In an earlier study, Chen et al (2020) found that five of seven CMIP5 Earth System Models (ESMs) driven by the G4 stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering scheme simulated significant mitigation of Arctic permafrost soil carbon loss.…”