The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research

Abstract

Advancing solar geoengineering research is associated with multiple hidden injustices that are revealed by addressing three questions: Who is conducting and funding solar geoengineering research? How do those advocating for solar geoengineering research think about social justice and social change? How is this technology likely to be deployed? Navigating these questions reveals that solar geoengineering research is being advocated for by a small group of primarily white men at elite institutions in the Global North, funded largely by billionaires or their philanthropic arms, who are increasingly adopting militarized approaches and logics. Solar geoengineering research advances an extreme, expert–elite technocratic intervention into the global climate system that would serve to further concentrate contemporary forms of political and economic power. For these reasons, we argue that it is unethical and unjust to advance solar geoengineering research.

The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering

“…Dominant ones also establish and spread norms and presumptions regarding research topics and practices. The geoengineering epistemic community has been notoriously narrow (Kintisch, 2010) and despite growth in numbers in the last decade remains predominantly white, male, wealthy, and Northern—even in contrast with broader climate change networks (Biermann & Möller, 2019; Buck et al, 2014; Stephens & Surprise, 2020). Deliberate efforts to broaden the community include the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) (2011), which has actively sought to engage scientific and policy audiences in the global South, and in recent years has provided funding in the DECIMALS program for SRM modeling research based in the global South 3 .…”

Anticipatory governance of solar geoengineering: conflicting visions of the future and their links to governance proposals

“…Concrete governance proposals relating to solar geoengineering focus on placing restrictions on research, development and future deployment. This includes calls to oppose solar geoengineering research [ 82 ] and demand legally binding international moratoria and prohibitions on outdoor research and deployment [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. These latter commentators refer to a 2010 decision under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as a much-needed ‘de facto moratorium’ on solar geoengineering activities, and as an important and effective step in the right direction.…”

Who Are the Engineers? Solar Geoengineering Research and Justice

“…This technology, research surrounding it, and its growing prevalence have been extremely controversial. Numerous NGOs, environmental advocacy groups, and academics have expressed alarm and condemnation of both research into and hypothetical deployment of such technologies (Center for International Environmental Law [CIEL] 2019; ETC Group 2018; Stephens and Surprise 2019;Heinrich Boll Foundation 2017;Schneider and Fuhr 2021;York 2021).…”

“…Ironically, such arguments often participate in the very dynamics they criticize. Stephens and Surprise (2019), for instance, argue that we should reject geoengineering as an approach being championed "by a small group of primarily white men at elite institutions in the Global North." These Global North-based researchers, without any disclosed consultation with Global South organizations or researchers, pronounced the Global South's interests from a microphone based in the North.…”