Solar Radiation Modification is risky, but so is rejecting it: A call for balanced research

Abstract

As it is increasingly uncertain whether humanity can limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) has been suggested as a potential temporary complement to mitigation. While no replacement for mitigation, evidence to date suggests that some SRM methods could contribute to reducing climate risks and would be technically feasible. But such interventions would also pose environmental risks and unprecedented governance challenges. The risks of SRM must be carefully weighed against those of climate change without SRM. Currently, both types of risks are not sufficiently understood to assess whether SRM could be largely beneficial. Given the already serious impacts of climate change and the possibility that pressure from their increasing severity will trigger rash decisions, we argue that timely, careful investigation and deliberation on SRM is a safer path than wilful ignorance. A framework of ethical guidelines and regulation can help limit potential risks from SRM research.