Can’t Solve a Problem — Take a Step Back and Share It
Nairobi has now been the place of intense exploratory discussions on climate interventions twice. Governments first discussed in 2019 whether the UN Environment Program (UNEP) might collect information — either focussed on scientific knowledge or also touching on governance possibilities — on “climate engineering” including large-scale carbon dioxide removal. Second, in February 2024, negotiators from across the globe were wrestling again with questions that seem borrowed from the pages of science fiction: How might humanity deal with the theoretical possibility of scattering energy in the atmosphere to slow or halt climate change? This idea, known as Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) is seen as a powerful lever in a complex landscape of risks, uncertainties and values in science, society, and policy.
The eminent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recognized the theoretical potential of SRM to slow or halt most climate threats to people and planet while actions to address the cause continue. Yet it also emphasizes profound uncertainties and risks including flowing from the lack of comprehensive governance. Even before nations started to discuss, a diverse range of responses has emerged among academics and campaigners, especially regarding the following questions: 1. Is there a possibility that the use of SRM — in some form — might ever be desirable as climate impacts continue to worsen, 2. whether and how such use of SRM may be suitably governed, and 3. which research activities may be desirable today.
Different views also showed in the interpretations of those observing the 2019 and 2024 negotiations in Nairobi. Back then, many blamed the lack of agreement on one single side. I deviated from those interpretations insofar that it takes two sides for a disagreement. It was clear to me based on the dynamic that I saw, while sitting in those stuffy negotiation rooms for an entire week, that on both ends there was no sufficient vision on the merits of multilateral information sharing. The willingness to make the necessary compromises on the framing of such joint efforts was thus not sufficient. Support was limited both on the side of those pushing for a severely restrictive framing — by a loose group including the EU — nor on the side of those asking for a less predetermined framing as requested by a group including the US.
This year may look like “just a little bit of history repeating” as negotiators again did not agree on a next step within the allocated time. But this would be too simplistic. For one, the object of discussion was now focused on SRM, and negotiators no longer needed to be mindful of the implications for their efforts to pursue carbon dioxide removals. Understanding of removals’ policy dimensions — as a form of mitigation — has dramatically improved since 2019.
Beyond this, the multilateral engagement in 2024 was highly valuable for the knowledge and information needs that have been highlighted by all parties that engaged in the discussion:
- transparency of what is being researched, what the findings are, who is researching and with what funding;
- tentative assessments of risks and potential risk-attenuation capacities;
- identify knowledge gaps and address the global asymmetry in knowledge among countries globally;
- governments to develop and share viewpoints including ideas on how to steer the issue of SRM and its research in governance.
These needs that governments identify point to important opportunities for constructive support and input where those of us who are driven by a passion for accountable public policy and strong multilateralism can make a difference.
The weariness of government representatives toward a specific step under UNEP is a clear indication that there’s a need for more opportunities to form more fully-fledged views and positions in their respective capitals. This includes the vague question of where one might draw the line between desirable research that answers to knowledge needs without introducing risks versus non-desirable activities (e.g. unjustified large-scale tests), which would need to be prevented. The lack of clarity on this is why the preamble’s framing of the issue remained so contested. In the absence of a clear delineation, it seems impossible to find the balance between ensuring necessary knowledge production to proceed, while also preventing dangerous activities.
Aside from the government representatives’ struggles, numerous advocacy organizations campaigned and offered their — in some cases surprisingly aggressive — takes.
A minority of vocal activists immediately pointed fingers to again blame the lack of agreement on a single side — or group of countries — in a simplistic and fundamentally unhelpful manner. Others seem to call for forceful and permanent decisions against all further consideration of SRM imposed for example via the UN General Assembly. My view is that neither the finger-pointing nor the door-shutting strategies are helping answer the needs for information, transparency, and globally inclusive decision-making. In fact, any decisions with permanent outcomes must meet the highest imaginable standards of informed deliberation, inclusivity, and accountability. Clearly, all UN nations must be empowered to form fully-fledged positions that also reflect the values and needs of their populations — a situation we are still very far from as Atiq Rahman and colleagues put it in a 2018 commentary in Nature:
“We are neutral on whether solar geoengineering should ever be used. It has not yet been established whether it would be a beneficial addition to meeting the Paris goals. We recognize its potential physical risks and socio-political implications. And we oppose its deployment until research into its safety and effectiveness has been completed and international-governance mechanisms established. But we are committed to the co-production of research and to well informed debate.
Others have already taken sides. Some people in the global north have tried to convince their peers in the south that they should reject solar geoengineering. Campaigners who vehemently oppose it often make their case by emphasizing the risks and playing down the potential benefits. We take issue with this paternalism and propose an inclusive way forward.”
If there is one thing I have learned from studying complex human-environmental systems for over 17 years, it is that shortcuts will fail. Tempting as they are, they fail to adopt the cooperative spirit that is needed for the international community to navigate the brewing storms of climate threats and guide the research, regulation, and potential use of powerful technology towards societal benefit. The complexity of SRM, straddling scientific, ethical, and geopolitical dimensions, demands more than finger pointing or blanket prohibitions.
While many interpreted the non-decision as a trend of fragmentation, I am more optimistic. This was — after a long gap — merely a second opportunity for the respective government ministries and agencies to ask: what is SRM and what does it mean for our nation? The consensus on the need for more information signals a shared and growing sense that the issue may pose some serious stakes around the world.
The answer to this is not inaction but responding to the needs that governments themselves pointed out, including transparency of activities and funding, information on what is known and what is unknown, research efforts to counter the current asymmetry in scientific knowledge, and further opportunities for developing and sharing of governments’ views.
I want to emphasize the criticality of allowing exploratory learning processes to unfold. Whether one’s personal preference might be to prevent SRM’s deployment or to contemplate its future utility, neither can be achieved unilaterally or through dictatorial top-down moves: the path forward must be multilateral, inclusive, and seeking to gradually improve trust and collaborative wisdom. The stakes are high: We need to bring out the best in every one of us — and as a collective in the international community.
Rahman, A. A., Artaxo, P., Asrat, A., & Parker, A. (2018). Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature, 556(7699), 22–24.
