By Alia Hassan, Director of International Policy
Over the course of eighteen months, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) conducted a foresight study in collaboration with the International Science Council (ISC) and other partners to identify a “range of emerging challenges that could disrupt planetary health and wellbeing.”1 The result of this study was released in July 2024 in the report “Navigating New Horizons: A Global Foresight Report on Planetary Health and Human Wellbeing.” Among the range of societal shifts, signals, and potential disruptions identified in the report, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) was ranked 16 on a perception score, among 18 other potential signals of change like artificial intelligence and emerging zoonotic diseases.
While SRM was ranked 16 on a perception score among 18 other potential signals of change (indicating it is not perceived to be as immediate or pressing a concern as some of the other issues included in the report), this ranking should not undermine the critical importance of addressing SRM. The report emphasizes the need for comprehensive scientific scrutiny and robust governance frameworks to address the complex risks and uncertainties associated with SRM technologies. It also highlights the importance of ethical considerations and the potential geopolitical implications of deploying SRM. By including SRM, the report underscores the urgency for policymakers to engage in inclusive and transparent deliberations, ensuring that voices from the Global South and other underrepresented communities are part of the global conversation on climate intervention strategies.
Significance for policymakers
The inclusion of SRM in the UNEP global foresight report emphasizes the urgent need for policymakers to consider emerging climate intervention technologies. While the report acknowledges that SRM could potentially mitigate some aspects of climate change, it also highlights significant risks and uncertainties. These include possible unintended environmental impacts, such as changes in weather patterns or damage to ecosystems, as well as geopolitical risks, like international disputes over the deployment and governance of such technologies.
For policymakers, this is a call to action to not only deepen scientific understanding of SRM technologies but also to develop robust governance frameworks that can manage these risks. In response to the uncertainties and unintended consequences mentioned in the report, policymakers can prioritize research into the implications of SRM, both to understand its feasibility and to prepare for any future decisions about its deployment.
But it’s not just about research. The report emphasizes the importance of including a diverse range of voices in these discussions, such as those from the Global South, who have historically been underrepresented in climate governance. This is crucial for ensuring that any potential deployment of SRM technologies is equitable and considers the perspectives and needs of all affected communities.
Governance insights
The global foresight report calls for establishing a new social contract and promoting agile, adaptive governance. Robust governance frameworks would be suited to manage the associated risks and uncertainties, involving not only governments, international organizations, scientists and civil society but also actively engaging vulnerable communities. This broad involvement is essential for addressing the ethical, environmental, and geopolitical challenges posed by SRM, ensuring that decisions are made transparently and with a just, global perspective.
The focus on governance also reflects the need for international cooperation and legal frameworks that can address the inherently global nature of climate intervention technologies. Effective governance will require mechanisms for accountability, transparency, and public participation, ensuring that all stakeholders, especially vulnerable communities, are included in the decision-making process.
Importantly, the global foresight report also makes the point that “choosing to ignore SRM altogether at this stage could carry its own risks, leaving society and decision-makers ill-prepared and potentially misguided”2. This echoes a similar point underlined in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, that a lack of comprehensive international frameworks for SRM creates a governance vacuum that poses a risk in and of itself.
The importance of public engagement
The report emphasizes the crucial role of public engagement in discussions around SRM. Recognizing that SRM technologies are speculative and contentious, the report calls for scientific scrutiny and more inclusive public discourse on their implications, including ethical considerations such as equity, justice, and a recognition of the potential impacts on different regions and communities. DSG strongly supports this recommendation and believes that open, transparent communication and access to scientific data to support informed decision-making are essential for building trust and ensuring public scrutiny of policy processes.
It’s not just about the simple action of public engagement alone. Rather, the report calls attention to the importance of engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, including women, indigenous and local communities, and young people. Ensuring these groups have a voice is essential for building more cohesive and resilient societies, which are crucial for effective governance in tackling complex global challenges like climate change. DSG considers public engagement vital for creating informed and empowered communities that can participate meaningfully in discussions about SRM and other emerging climate intervention technologies. In its first year of operation, DSG has partnered with local civil society organizations in South Asia and Africa, and is actively exploring new potential partnerships in Latin America and Small Island countries. These efforts aim to support the inclusion of these communities in global discussions on SRM, ensuring that their unique perspectives and concerns are represented in international decision-making processes.
Conclusion
This emphasis on public engagement aligns closely with our mission, which aims to empower climate-vulnerable communities by providing science-based, unbiased information. The UNEP global foresight report’s insights underscore the relevance of this mission in advocating for transparent and inclusive discussions on SRM and its role to support increased engagement and capacity building in the Global South, ensuring that these communities are well-prepared to participate in global deliberations on SRM and in shaping the future of climate governance.
The inclusion of SRM in this report reflects a growing recognition that traditional mitigation efforts, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, may not be sufficient alone to meet global climate goals. This recognition can – and should – drive a broader conversation among policymakers about the relevance of integrating SRM into national and international climate strategies, ensuring that any exploration of SRM is conducted transparently, inclusively, and ethically.
By addressing SRM alongside other emerging issues, the global foresight report provides a crucial framework for policymakers to navigate the potential risks and benefits of SRM technologies. Importantly, this serves as a reminder to policymakers that SRM, while controversial and complex, cannot be ignored in the broader discourse on climate action. It is a call to action to build the necessary knowledge base, governance structures, and ethical frameworks to address the full spectrum of climate challenges.
- https://www.unep.org/resources/global-foresight-report ↩︎
- United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Navigating New Horizons: A global foresight report on planetary health and human wellbeing (p.34). The report cites Wiener, J.B., et al. (2023) on the risks of ignoring SRM ↩︎