Search

In recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and elsewhere, consideration has been given to two categories of interventions to alleviate the impacts of climate change, sometimes referred to as ‘geoengineering’. They include mitigation measures known as large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and remediative measures known as Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), both of which have potential to reduce climate change but face uncertainties around their feasibility, acceptability, sustainability and governance. As the effects of global heating become increasingly apparent, whether or not to consider large-scale CDR or SRM as part of broader risk management responses to the climate crisis is becoming a serious governance issue. Ungoverned deployment of these approaches poses potentially critical environmental and geopolitical risks that now demand urgent consideration, before events overtake us. A range of existing governance mechanisms can and do apply at national and international level but many weaknesses have been identified and considerable uncertainties exist regarding their applicability, scope and likely effectiveness.This paper introduces the two categories of technologies and interventions, summarising the current status of their governance and considering next steps needed to strengthen global governance arrangements in future.

Concern about the increasingly high-probability, high-impact risks posed by global warming is driving the exploration of new techniques to artificially cool the planet through an approach known as solar radiation modification (SRM). Would the world be better off with or without such techniques? Would there be winners and losers? And how can we sufficiently compare the relative risks presented in a future with SRM against the risks faced in a future without it? Such ‘risk-risk’ assessment poses particular challenges given uncertainties around the techniques and the extent of human-induced changes to the climate system that might be expected in the future. These uncertainties are further compounded by differences in stakeholders’ framing and risk tolerance, as well as the level of complexity and the intertemporal nature of such assessment. To help address these questions, mindful of such challenges, we present here a basic risk-risk assessment framework providing a structure to help strengthen risk-management considerations in the design of future climate response strategies.