A New Approach to Discussing Climate Interventions
By Whitney Peterson, Director of Strategy and Communications
On September 25, 2024, during New York Climate Week, DSG and The International Center for Future Generations (ICFG) hosted an event with a mission to push the conversation on climate interventions beyond entrenched positions and into a space where collaboration and progress are possible. With climate change accelerating, it’s vital we explore every potential avenue—carefully, transparently, and inclusively. Our event set out to create exactly that kind of thoughtful, open dialogue.
Why We Created This Event
The rationale for this event stemmed from a growing realization that polarized views on SRM are preventing constructive dialogue and hindering the development of effective governance frameworks. In many cases, SRM is framed in extremes—either as a dangerous distraction from mitigation efforts or as a last-resort technology to save humanity. These polarizing positions limit the space for nuanced discussions that are essential for informed decision-making.
The conversation surrounding SRM has become highly polarized, with some advocating for it as a necessary tool in the fight against climate change, while others dismiss it as reckless interference with Earth’s natural systems that we shouldn’t talk about.
We designed this event to try to cut through this polarization and foster a discussion that values inclusivity and collaboration. Our goal was to create a space where experts and stakeholders from various backgrounds could engage in a more human-centered dialogue, focusing on the complex realities of SRM. From DSG’s perspective, SRM is not—and should never be—considered a standalone solution to climate change, but it may warrant cautious research as part of a broader climate response toolkit. However, that exploration must be governed: transparent, inclusive, and guided by ethical considerations. This event was designed to reflect these priorities, providing a forum for open and respectful conversation about the science, ethics, and governance of SRM.
In designing this event, we chose to observe Chatham House Rules and opted not to record the session for external use. These decisions were intentional, rooted in our desire to create a space where participants felt free to speak openly, share their concerns, and engage in honest dialogue without fear of repercussions or misrepresentation. We understand that conversations around SRM can be deeply personal and politically charged, and we wanted to ensure that everyone in the room felt safe and secure in expressing their thoughts. By protecting anonymity and emphasizing confidentiality, we aimed to foster a more genuine, unguarded exchange of ideas—one where the focus could shift from rigid positions to more nuanced, collaborative thinking. This atmosphere of trust was essential to try to break down barriers and move beyond the polarized debate that so often limits progress on climate interventions.
Key Takeaways: Broad Lessons from the Event
1. Biases shape our perspectives
Our perspectives on SRM are influenced by biases stemming from the sectors we work in, our roles, and the regions we represent, often leading us to make assumptions about others’ positions. In the Global North, it is commonly assumed that the Global South views SRM with suspicion due to concerns over inequality and governance. However, the Global South is diverse, and many, particularly those more vulnerable to climate impacts, are open to discussing SRM as a potential solution. Likewise, while some youth focus on long-term risks and intergenerational justice, others, especially those facing immediate climate threats, are more inclined to explore SRM. These varied perspectives highlight the importance of inclusive, evidence-based discussions to challenge assumptions and foster fair, transparent governance frameworks for SRM.
2. Polarization challenges inclusivity in SRM discussions
One of the most potent messages from the event was how polarization makes inclusivity more difficult in SRM debates. Communities most at risk from climate change, particularly those in vulnerable regions, are often sidelined as the debate becomes dominated by wealthier nations and extreme viewpoints. This polarization hinders the inclusion of diverse perspectives, skewing discussions and making it harder for SRM research and governance to be legitimate and effective. For SRM decisions to truly reflect global needs, it’s critical to break through this polarization and prioritize the voices of those who face the most existential risks.
2. Trust must be earned through transparency
As we heard multiple times throughout the event, trust is fragile. Public skepticism of SRM is understandable, given the potential risks and ethical challenges it presents. That’s why transparency is absolutely essential in every stage of SRM research and governance. Participants stressed that any exploration of SRM must be open about uncertainties, potential risks, and governance mechanisms. Without transparency, trust is impossible—and without trust, responsible research cannot proceed.
3. SRM is not just a technical problem—It’s a human one
Another key takeaway was that SRM is not purely a scientific or technical issue—it’s also a deeply human one. Participants from both technical and sociopolitical backgrounds highlighted the need to consider the broader societal and ethical impacts of SRM, rather than focusing solely on scientific outcomes. This means acknowledging the political, ethical, and cultural dimensions of SRM, and ensuring that research agendas are not solely dictated by technical experts, but by a broader coalition of stakeholders.
Where Do We Go From Here? Charting the Path Forward
The discussions we had during Climate Week were only the beginning. As we look ahead, a few clear priorities emerged from our event that will guide the next phase of work on SRM.
1. Continue building inclusive spaces for dialogue
The conversations at our event demonstrated that respectful, open dialogue across diverse perspectives is not only possible but essential. Moving forward, we must create more opportunities for inclusive engagement where people feel comfortable enough to share their views—spaces where climate scientists, policymakers, civil society, and vulnerable communities can come together to share concerns, hopes, and ideas for the future of SRM governance.
2. Prioritize public engagement and ethical communication
Public understanding of SRM is still limited, and this gap in knowledge can lead to fear and misinformation. Transparent communication strategies are essential to bringing the public along in the journey of SRM research. At the same time, these strategies must acknowledge the ethical complexity of SRM and engage with the public in a way that is open, honest, and respectful of their values and concerns. Public trust will only grow when communication is clear, inclusive, and free of spin.
3. Develop global agreements and frameworks that promote trust, not division
It’s clear that governance will be one of the most critical aspects of SRM exploration. Who will oversee research? Who will ensure that it’s conducted ethically and transparently? How do we protect the interests of vulnerable nations? These questions need to be answered through the development of frameworks and/or agreements that are accountable to all, not just the powerful few. These frameworks must be built on transparency, inclusivity, and accountability to foster trust across borders and sectors.
Looking Ahead: A Call for Continued Engagement
As we move forward, DSG is committed to continuing the work of fostering open, inclusive, and transparent dialogue on SRM. We believe that the only way to responsibly explore SRM is through collective, informed, and ethical decision-making. The global challenges posed by climate change require solutions that are as multifaceted and inclusive as the problems themselves. SRM may not be the answer, but it is an option that demands careful, thoughtful consideration with ultimate decisions made collectively. By continuing to move beyond polarization, we can work together to ensure that the field of SRM will be guided by transparency, trust, and a shared commitment to protecting the planet for future generations.