Geoengineering – tinkering with climate justice

Once again, global greenhouse gas emissions have increased instead of decreasing. This is shown by the latest figures from the UN environmental organization Unep. In 2023, humanity emitted 57.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalents, 1.3 percent more than the previous year. According to UNEP, in order to get on the 1.5 degree path, emissions would have to be reduced by 7.5 percent annually by 2035.

As it becomes increasingly likely that the climate targets agreed in Paris will be exceeded, technical solutions are increasingly being discussed in order to subsequently reduce the temperatures on earth again. In order to regulate research in this area, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) presented an “ethical framework for research into interventions in the climate system” at the end of October.

There are theoretically two ways to partially reverse global warming: carbon dioxide removal (Carbon Dioxide Removal, CDR for short) or reducing solar radiation (Solar Radiation Management, SRM for short). In addition to large-scale reforestation, CDR also includes less proven techniques, such as spreading rock dust, which binds CO2 from the air as it weathers, or various techniques to make the oceans absorb even more carbon dioxide.

Block out the sun

With SRM, however, nothing is changed in the greenhouse content of the atmosphere; instead, a larger proportion of the sun’s rays are reflected so that they can warm the air, soil and seas less. The discussion here is, for example, about releasing sulfur particles and other aerosols into the stratosphere, which would have a cooling effect, or brightening clouds over the sea. SRM is – even more than CDR – primarily a thought experiment; field trials have only been carried out to an extremely limited extent. And caution is advised, because this could result in intervention in the climate system across countries and over a longer period of time. For example, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warns that SRM could have unpredictable effects on weather patterns, biodiversity and agriculture.

In fact, there is a moratorium on the use of SRM under the Convention on Biological Diversity, decided in 2010, until the technologies can be scientifically evaluated. Smaller research projects are not affected by the moratorium. But with a foreseeable failure to meet the Paris climate targets, the pressure to advance research in this area, also known as “geoengineering,” is growing. Since 2022, the AGU has therefore developed an ethical framework for research in both CDR and SRM. The aim is to reduce risks and, above all, not to create new climate injustices. The burden of climate impacts is already not evenly distributed among all people on earth, emphasizes AGU project manager Billy Williams. “As we think about technologies to counteract warming, it is important that we do not increase this unequal burden,” he says.

No substitute for emissions reductions

According to the framework directive presented, research projects, funding commitments and research policy should adhere to five basic principles. Interventions in the climate should therefore never replace emission reductions. They should follow an overarching approach to climate justice and not shift negative climate impacts from one group of those affected to another. The public should be involved in discussions in advance to consult potentially affected indigenous populations according to the principle of free, prior and informed consent. Furthermore, transparency about the financing of geoengineering experiments is required. If there are significant risks, research projects should be reviewed by an independent institution.

According to the AGU, the guidelines were developed in a two-year process by over 40 transdisciplinary experts worldwide. However, Oliver Munnion from the Geoengineering Monitor, a network of ETC Group, Biofuelwatch and Heinrich Böll Foundation, is critical of the composition of the team of experts. There, pro-geoengineering voices from the Global North predominate, Munnion told »nd.Die Woche«.

To date, there are no international legal requirements for geoengineering research. The AGU would now like to promote its proposal to researchers, donors and governments. The AGU hopes that acceptance of the ethical principles could contribute to public acceptance of the research field.

The proposal has already met with criticism from researchers who were not involved in developing the guidelines. “The risks and opportunities for CDR and SRM are very different and it is surprising that these two technology groups are combined in one report,” says Wilfried Rickels, head of the Global Commons and Climate Policy Research Center at the Institute for the World Economy in Kiel. The directive would transfer the tasks and responsibilities of politics to science. The question is not answered: “What possibilities, opportunities and risks arise for CDR in globally non-coordinated climate policies?”

Ethical framework as legitimacy

Fundamental criticism from a completely different direction comes from the non-governmental organization CIEL. »The American Geophysical Union framework gives undue legitimacy to technologies that should have no place in an ethical climate strategy. “Geoengineering would directly violate core principles of environmental protection, human rights and climate justice that are enshrined in international treaties,” explains CIEL campaigner Mary Church. In addition, indigenous groups have repeatedly expressed rejection of geoengineering research in the past.