Climate change demands immediate action, with temperature records broken regularly and climate impacts clearly escalating. In addition to reducing emissions and strengthening adaptation, which are essential, other climate interventions – specifically solar radiation modification (SRM or solar geoengineering) – are emerging as potential additional tools that could alleviate some symptoms of climate change, but with unknown risks.
Matthias Honegger and Cynthia Scharf from the International Center for Future Generations (ICFG), a European think tank, are leading their work on climate intervention technologies and have set the SOIF2024 Live Challenge to address the urgent and debated field of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). This approach could significantly reduce some impacts of climate change, but it also raises profound ethical, environmental and governance challenges that will resonate for generations to come.
In exploring these questions, the Live Challenge aims to contribute to the debate on solar geoengineering and to frame these technologies within the broader narrative of just and sustainable transitions. In this interview, we delve into how strategic foresight can be crucial in navigating the challenges of climate interventions, aiming to equip policymakers and stakeholders with insights that balance innovation with the imperative of intergenerational equity.
SOIF: Could you explain what Solar Radiation Modification (also known as “solar geoengineering”) entails and why is it particularly controversial?
Cynthia Scharf and Matthias Honegger: SRM describes a set of hypothetical techniques to scatter light through dissemination of tiny droplets in the atmosphere that reduce the amount of heat trapped. Based on computer models and observations from volcanic eruptions, the science observes that SRM—if done carefully—could prevent many of the effects of anthropogenic warming on global and regional climate but notes it would introduce additional risks and uncertainties, and knowledge is currently insufficient.
The issue is controversial as many fear that these ideas—and even researching them—would take away from the focus of green policies for reducing CO2 emissions alongside efforts to adapt. Many find it inappropriate for humans to deliberately intervene in our planet’s atmosphere and thus reject even researching or discussing this idea. Others note that mounting climate impacts may create such pressures that future decision makers might see such interventions as beneficial for reducing suffering given the prospect of floods, storms, droughts and temperature extremes undermining human health, ecosystems and livelihoods in entire world regions.
One important challenge in this discussion is that it is based on varying assumptions of how the future might look and many—often unspoken—views on how we may consider the interests of present and future generations.
“Does humanity have the right to intentionally alter the one atmosphere we share seeking to reduce extreme heat and related climate impacts? On the other hand, given the gravity of the climate crisis, do we have a right not to?”
SOIF: What are the main ethical dilemmas and how can strategic foresight help address them to ensure fairness for all generations?
Cynthia Scharf and Matthias Honegger: SRM poses a number of ethical dilemmas. Does humanity have the right to intentionally alter the one atmosphere we share, seeking to reduce extreme heat and related climate impacts? On the other hand, given the gravity of the climate crisis, do we have a right not to? SRM does not address the cause of climate change, as it does not reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At best, it can only be a supplement, but never a substitute, for decarbonising the global economy. However, will some, including the fossil fuel industry, see SRM as a supposedly “easy way out” that helps them avoid phasing out fossil fuels ? Would it undermine political will to do what we have to do in any case, since SRM only addresses some of the symptoms, not the cause, of the climate crisis (this is often referred to as a moral hazard)?
SRM would also affect future generations, since if it were used, it would need to be continued for decades if not a century or more until the world has reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, this technology has intergenerational equity issues at its core.
Strategic foresight is crucial for informing decision-makers about the pros, cons, risks and unknowns of SRM, and for helping them create anticipatory governance for its research, testing and potential use. Foresight can also help explore different assumptions and value judgments and help find common ground where unresolved differences might otherwise prove agreement impossible. At present there is no comprehensive international governance for SRM and this, in itself, poses a serious risk.
“SRM would also affect future generations, since if it were used, it would need to be continued for decades if not a century or more until the world has reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
SOIF: What key insights or actions are you hoping to achieve from the Live Challenge at the retreat?
Cynthia Scharf and Matthias Honegger: The rich diversity of participants at the Live Challenge presents us with an amazing opportunity to hear a range of perspectives from different professional backgrounds, geographic regions and life experiences about a controversial topic few people know much about – but could affect us all. This broader perspective is critical for developing governance for SRM that is equitable and acceptable to broad swathes of society.
At present, most conversations on SRM have taken place among a scientific and political elite. This needs to change, and the Live Challenge provides an opportunity to begin doing so. ICFG is dedicated to shaping a future where decision-makers anticipate and responsibly govern the societal impacts of rapid technological change. We are keen to share with EU policymakers the diversity of ideas and concerns raised by Live Challenge participants.
