COP29 Side Event notes - Solar Radiation Modification - A Conversation on Governance and Research

While attending COP29 in Baku I am attending a variety of side events and negotiations. I'll be posting notes of these so more people can get some of the insights and perspectives being shared here in Azerbaijan.

Speakers

Professor Nana Klutse - University of Ghana - works with Degrees Initiative and is Vice Chair of IPCC WGI 7th cycle

Matthias Honegger - Perspectives Climate Research - explores for a EU project under which conditions SRM research can proceed responsibly

Jason Jabbour - UNEP - senior adviser with office of the Chief Scientist - works with One Atmosphere Project

Hassaan Sipra = Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering -

Thelma Krug - ex IPCC - chairs the Global Observation System for Climate at WMO - climate researcher for Brazil and negotiator for 15 years

Andy Parker - the Degrees Initiative - working on SRM since 2008 at Royal Society

Lisa Graumlich - American Geophysical Union president, lots of work on what ethical research in SRM may look like

Moderator Matthias is from the Degrees Initiative which is neutral on deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) but thinks developing countries need to be informed to make decisions.

• Why are we talking about SRM under UNFCCC, which is focussed on mitigation adaptation L&D and finance?

• SRM is the only thing that can rapidly reduce temperatures. But there are big unknowns and it could be very harmful.

• Discussion of SRM is rapidly growing, seen in consideration of an SRM Resolution at the UN General Assembly.

• We encourage experts to share info to move the governance discussion along.

Andy Parker:

• In June 1991 Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, blasting millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. The thin veil of sulphuric acid lightly veils the earth from sunlight and temperatures fall.

• Scientists wondered if we could deliberately replicate this. And we probably could - engineering studies indicate that jets could fly high enough and with billions of dollars a year it could be done. But should we do it? Not just about science but economics, policy, ethics, much more.

• Why consider SRM? Surely the answer is cutting GHG emissions to zero? Yes! Still have to do that, SRM doesn't get us off the hook, still need to maintain focus on emissions cuts However three numbers explain why SRM needs to be researched. 2.7: current warming best estimate with current policies (from Climate Action Tracker). 2.3: even more concerningly, the warming if we achieve the most ambitiously optimistic emissions cuts envisaged, but climate sensitivity turns out to be at the high end of the current estimated range. We're miles away from those cuts! 1: the number of options to quickly reduce global temperatures. SRM is the only option that could cool the planet within years. Speed can potentially reduce risks from already-emitted GHG. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD DO IT, but this is why people are looking at it.

Nana:

• How to do it? Learn from nature.

• Most evidence comes from computer models. Warning SRM is a tool. Like any tool, what it 'does' depends on assumption about how it is used. We want to understand other consequences alongside cooling. Temperatures should go down Rainfall disruption? Slower rate of sea level rise We'd expect this through common sense, but the climate system is complex - need to research to understand actual likely effect. Less intense tropical storms Fewer heatwaves

• The modelled effects of continued warming are serious.

• Poor deployment of SRM could also have serious consequences Overcooling? We need to understand how much SRM would be too much. Precipitation impacts - how well can they be managed? What impact would SRM in one hemisphere have on the other? Changed weather patterns in some tropical regions? Sudden high SRM - plausible it would cause weakened monsoons Sudden stop to SRM - large warming pulse

• All this is an opportunity to do research. Complex areas we don't have enough evidence on: Health Biodiversity Agriculture

• In Ghana we are doing current research on potential impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection on the Harmattan Season in West Africa. Trying to understand relationship between an existing dust influx, temperature, and a range of weather variables. During Harmattan Seasons the intertropical convergence zone shifts and spreads rainfall over the region; this correlates well with dust storms that cool the area. Observation supports understanding of the situation, not just modelling.

• Socio political dimensions need to be understood. Moral hazard - will SRM reduce commitments to cut CO2 emissions? The answer should be no - but we also need immediate solutions to the temperature rise. Slippery slope - is research leading us to uncritically deploy SRM? Politics of SRM: Some feel that SRM is harmless compared to other interventions But who decides? The global north, or UAE, or China have big resources and some are intervening in rainfall [or attempting to] Global South needs the technology and resources to make its own decisions.

Andy again:

• Politics is the most difficult dimension of SRM.

• SRM in theory could be deployed unilaterally or by a small coalition.

• What if China did so, and then India experienced a catastrophic flood? Some would say SRM caused it, some would say this could happen anyway. How would India react?

• Even in the best case on side effects, how would you get agreement on optimal temperature between different countries?

• Some have concluded that SRM is ungovernable. But that's the wrong approach - is it less governable than a world above 2C? We don't know. We need research.

• Before 2018 there was no SRM research outside the North and China.

• Now Degrees Project supports research across the Global South The theory of change is about governance and redistribution of power This is about distribution of knowledge and research, not concentration

Q&A

• Is it too early to bring this topic to the climate negotiations given uncertainties and serious risks? Nana: The consequences of global warming are serious and there will need to be trade offs with any side effects.

• The Aral Sea shows the consequences of heavy geoengineering. How cna you be sure that SRM does not create more problems of rainfall variability that make adaptation harder? Nana: the best answer is to do the research to understand better, not to just go to deployment.

• The IMO has done some inadvertant SRM by taking sulphur out of shipping fuels globally. We've seen noticeable warming over the oceans. We can get data from that to get more confidence on intentional SRM. Can you comment on the IMO experience? Andy: Important point. This was the framing question of a seminal Dutch article in 2006 - we're already artificially suppressing global temperatures via sulphur pollution at low levels. We need to remove that to protect human health, but that will cause  aspike in temperatures. Should we replace large pollution at low altitudes with small pollution at high elevations to avoid greater harm? We don't yet know enough to make that tradeoff. That's why we need to research.

Panel discussion

Matthias: I hope none of us think we should deploy SRM today - not enough understanding. But given the gaps, what role can research play, assessment, and broader discussion?

To Hassaan - why not simply ignore SRM?

Hassaan: If you don't have governance one way or the other, you can have tech deployed in a very siloed manner. It could be done very cheaply and by very few players compared to mitigation.

The debate is also very much about human suffering - what is less bad, the risks of SRM or the risks of climate change? We're barrelling towards serious climate consequences, warming above 3C. Of course alternative strategies will be explored.

For civil society in particular, ignoring SRM gives carte blanche to players who don't care about equity.

There has been rapid movement on SRM in the last couple of years - UNEP, UNHRC, US Government reports and research agendas. EU investing in certain aspects of SRM research. UK Government GBP75m research program. And philanthropic funding is also ramping up.

Most of this money is coming from Global North institutions and funders. That's not what we should want to see - the Global South needs to develop their own diverse viewpoints and claim their seat at the table. Just as they have on other climate topics, the Global South must struggle actively to get on the agenda.

To Lisa - what made the AGU want ot get involved?

Lisa: The AGU leadership group started to think about the "who decides" issue three years ago. And we developed an ethical framework for geo engineering research.

AGU supports hundreds of scientists around the world, publish journals, advocate for scientific ethics.

Our most urgent priority must be to tackle the root problem of GHG emissions. SRM must not replace mitigation.

We need a comprehensive strategy to slow global warming, and need to discuss the place in that of various sorts of climate intervention including SRM and carbon dioxide removal. We need an information base for that and ethical guidance - the activity starting to happen is not guided.

This is not new. The world has established guidelines for human cloning and other topics. We need the same for climate interventions. Without a framework there is a chance the whole topic will be banned.

So AGU developed five key principles:

1. Research needs to be responsible. Intervention research should complement, not replace, emissions reduction. Justification must assess risks and rewards.

2. Wholistic climate justice. Researchers must consider potentially shifted impacts and wider implicaitons.

3. Inclusive public participation. Engaging impacted communities and the consent of indigenous peoples.

4. Transparency. Funding and activity must be openly disclosed.

5. Informed governance. High risk research should be reviewed by independent bodies and scrutinised.

These are not the last word, but a living document.

Matthias: it's clear there's no simple tick box exercise to handle the ethics of SRM research.

To Thelma: you were involved in the Overshoot Commission, thinking about our current trajectory to exceed Paris targets. The Commission considered options to reduce the risks - can you share the results, and should there be SRM research, and why, and how might the global south be involved?

Thelma: I'm not a researcher on this topic, but a very curious person. The last IPCC assessment has much interesting information but no recommendation. The last assessment of the literature said there are still lots of uncertainties on SRM implication for health, environment and more. But from assessment to assessment we see a growth of research in this area. And that is what we need.

For any researcher what matters is scientific intrigue. We don't want to be prevented from exploring.

So far SRM research is mostly modelling studies - exploring, refining, but not experimenting. My own feeling is there is a huge gap between doing modelling and experiments outside.

The Overshoot Commission doesn't have technical people or researchers, but very high level people - ex ministers with a continuing voice. Because they don't really understand the science behind some things, they have three scientific advisers. I was there to relay what the IPCC says. SRM is the best understood of the engineering options.

For the overshoot commission the definition of overshoot is different to the IPCC. Huge effort needed to come back from overshoot.

Commission concluded that we need much more Global South research into interventions. There is more of the is now, but very individual and not enough.

It takes a lot of money to do engagement and research well. There is that in the North but not the South, not with enough conditions to push hard on work.

There’s a role for research funding agencies - there is a big one in Brazil - but how can they fund work in this space if they aren’t qualified to assess the researchers in the space. Need scientific partnerships to enable us to advance fast enough.

Policy makers need to be much better informed to be able to deal with SRM in any context. We need some form of governance. Policy makers need informed decisions.

SRM and CDR have been separated at the IPCC and are being dealt with separately. Glad to see IPCC suggest governance principles on SRM research that are similar to Lisa’s.

SRM must only be considered as part of a broader mitigation-focussed strategy.

Matthias: decision makers need access to information. UNEP One Atmosphere report tried to provide that. Jason worked on it.

Jason: UNEP job is to examine new interventions that could affect planetary health. A few years ago we took a look at SRM with others as an independent expert review.

Wanted to understand risks and how to quantify and manage them. Initially a more inward-facing report, but evolved because of the discourse and interest and need to address it.

We quickly concluded we need to know far more before we can make any informed decisions. Partly because of huge uncertainty - there’s far more research on climate impacts, but not much evidence on risks to society, ecology. There is lots of modelling but not much examination of unintended consequences.

Report unearthed key concerns - legal dimensions, governance, ethics.

A big concern is the extent to which this conversation is being held in an echo chamber of the global north.

Is there also a risk of diverting resources from decarbonisation?

There’s also an obvious gap on governance of research. We see on both sides of the spectrum a lot of apprehension and calls for more support.

UNEP found a need for more scientific review informed by more perspectives and inclusivity.

What’s the next step? There’s a lot of mainstream discourse on how divisive the topic is - but our experience is that there’s wide agreement that it needs to be better understood, mitigation needs to be the priority, and we are far from ready to make a decision to deploy.

Q&A 2

• Is there research on potential attribution of weather events to SRM?

Hassaan: there is research on analysing practical effects for ordinary people. There is also RFF research on “Cooperative and Noncooperative approaches to SRM”

Civil society needs to inform the framing of research questions - the South is affected too but the North has the research budgets.

• we know a lot about SRM already - eg we need to deploy it for more than 100 years. How can we find stable enough governance to last 100+ years?

Matthias: there’s no guarantee! But not doing the research doesn’t guarantee it won’t be deployed.

Thelma: the results of research will not necessarily trigger deployment. I find it difficult to find a governance space that will make us reasonably safe. After last week (US election) I am in despair that we will face unilateral action. We’re a little lost on who will take charge of governance.

Nana: most of what we know is about the North. Time to research for the global South. Also governance is

• EDF: we need to expand this conversation to other venues and expand research on what the impacts would be. Need impact understanding at regional level.

• the premise of Degrees is “let’s hear from the South”. But what if some voices say “no”? Is that a legitimate answer? And where is the push for SRM coming from? The United States and UK. This is a very small group of people. The African Group and Fiji resoundingly said “take SRM off the table”.

Matthias: there’s are different views on what was said earlier this year at UNEO

Hassaan: the non use agreement idea out there is very valid. Our work is to ensure that not only is a diversity of voices heard but that we get to a consensus.

Matthias: next year the Degrees global forum is in South Africa, Cape Town, May 12-16