National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 A Solar Geoengineering Research Program: Goals and Approach
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 159
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 160
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 161
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 162
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 163
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 164
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 165
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 166
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 167
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 168
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 169
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 170
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 171
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 172
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"5 Solar Geoengineering Research Governance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25762.
×
Page 190

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

CHAPTER FIVE Solar Geoengineering Research Governance 5.1 INTRODUCTION Effective research governance is a critical component of any robust research pro- gram. In the context of SG, research governance relates not only to the physical risks of the research but also to dimensions such as public transparency over what work is being undertaken, procedural and control issues, who has input into decisions about whether research goes forward, liability for the consequences of research, and more general conflicts over the role of humans in the environment and the morality of specific types of research. There can be some inherent tensions among different governance goals. For instance, efforts to build trust and legitimacy through extensive public engagement could lead to some constraints on the goal of producing socially beneficial knowledge or could add to the costs of research. Importantly, however, governance and engagement efforts can also benefit and help enable research—es- pecially for controversial, societally consequential issues such as SG—by building trust, legitimacy, accountability, and social responsiveness. Building upon the analyses in the preceding chapters, which provided an overview of domestic and international mechanisms that could apply to the governance of SG research or deployment (Chapter 2) and considered the “decision space” and principles for SG research governance for SG research (Chapter 3), this chapter offers specific rec- ommendations for governance aimed at SG research stakeholders, including research- ers, funders of research, science agencies, national governments, international bodies, and other relevant organizations. The limited efforts to date by states to engage in SG research governance suggest a potentially significant role for non-state actors in such governance. While Chapter 4 considered governance aimed at ensuring a socially robust research program, this chapter is more focused on the governance of individual research activities. Risks that play out programmatically may differ from risks that play out in the context of specific projects. 159 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Many of the recommendations in this chapter—such as registries, codes of conduct, data sharing, and assessment—could be adopted at both national and international levels. However, with few exceptions, global agreements have evolved out of domestic laws and regulations—not necessarily as a matter of preference, but because initial momentum was built domestically (Morrow and Light, 2019). The exceptions, such as the creation of the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change, are important. Attempts at international governance, especially on new issues like SG, however, will confront the reality that the default multilateral consensus process often produces very weak initial agreements, especially among nearly 200 sovereign parties. At a minimum, domestic and international governance should complement each other. Governance mechanisms and principles developed domestically can be in- formative to policy makers developing international governance mechanisms and may be developed and implemented more quickly than international efforts. In turn, successful international governance can improve domestic governance by reinforcing domestic efforts and creating expectations of greater levels of domestic enforcement. Simultaneous domestic and international efforts may increase the efficiency, effective- ness, and chance of success of advancing some level of effective governance. Because domestic and international governance efforts are often pursued in different parts of governments and in different kinds of intergovernmental or nongovernmen- tal institutions, this chapter is organized with the goal of enabling readers and policy professionals to readily identify the recommendations most relevant to them. The first section of the chapter provides recommendations that may be adopted by countries or subnational entities within countries and, in some cases, by the research commu- nity. The second section presents recommendations that may be adopted interna- tionally. Several of the recommended governance mechanisms are discussed in both sections, as they would be useful at multiple levels. Analysis in support of recommen- dations in one section often supports recommendations made in the other section. The committee envisions that its recommendations will be acted upon in their totality, but each is worth pursuing individually. Table 5.1 provides an overview of the governance mechanisms discussed in this chap- ter, goals and/or principles that they foster, and actors for the chapter’s governance recommendations. As discussed in Chapter 2, some existing U.S. laws and regulations are potentially rel- evant to SG research, but these were not crafted with SG research in mind. At the do- mestic level, environmental laws may impose procedural obligations (e.g., the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA) or substantive limits on conduct (e.g., the U.S. Clean Air Act). Indoor SG research (i.e., laboratory and modeling studies) generally would 160 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance TABLE 5.1 Governance Mechanisms Discussed in This Chapter Governance Goals/Principles Served Relevant Actor(s) Discussed in this Chapter Mechanism by This Mechanism Recommendations code of conduct responsible science, 5.1a, 5.1b, 5.1c researchers, funders of research, effective practices national institutions registry transparency, 5.1d, 5.1e, 5.1p nations, researchers, funders of information sharing research, scientific publishers, appropriate international body data sharing transparency, 5.1j, 5.1k researchers, funders of research, information sharing publishers assessments and risk assessment, impact 5.1f, 5.1g, 5.1h, 5.1o nations, funders of research, reviews assessment, strengthen appropriate UN body or bodies science, transparency, public engagement permitting transparency, oversight 5.1i nations intellectual property information sharing 5.1l researchers participation inclusivity, public 5.1m, 5.1n, 5.1t, 5.1u individuals, institutions, nations, and stakeholder engagement, researchers, funders of research, engagement transparency appropriate international and regional governance bodies international coordination of 5.1q funders of research, researchers cooperation and research, joint research co-development on projects/programs research teams international coordination of 5.1r science agencies cooperation among research, information national scientific sharing, joint research agencies projects/programs international coordination of 5.1s coalition of state and non-state information sharing research, information actors and cooperation on sg sharing, transparency, research and research participation and governance public engagement international risk assessment, 5.1v UN body or other international anticipatory effective practices, institution governance expert conflict resolution committee 161 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G not trigger the application of existing environmental laws, and only some outdoor experiments would do so. Experiments with insignificant environmental impacts, and experiments lacking significant federal government involvement, would not be sub- ject to NEPA’s requirements to prepare an environmental impact statement that would undergo public notice and comment. Outdoor research intended to produce artificial changes in the atmosphere would trigger the Weather Modification Reporting Act’s (WMRA) modest reporting requirements. The application of other environmental statutes to field research would depend on the nature of the research and the materi- als used and released. In any case, these statutes focus on physical impacts and not on the social or ethical concerns that frequently surround SG research. Tort law serves as another potential mechanism for governance of SG research, but it would generally require evidence that SG research caused harm to a plaintiff. Current international law provides a general framework, but it does not explicitly promote, prohibit, or significantly limit SG research; nor does it provide a system of required or recommended research transparency or reporting mechanisms.1 Current institutions of international law could potentially address transboundary physical effects of research but not the broader political or ethical concerns that have been raised in the literature and by civil society organizations. At the current stage of SG research—consisting primarily of modeling, observational studies of natural phenomena, and proposed small-scale field research with minimal or zero environmental or transboundary impacts—there would be very limited ap- plicability of international institutions. If such institutions were to begin a deliberative process to directly address SG research, it would likely be a lengthy process, subject to rules and norms of consensus that more often than not govern these institutions and sometimes result in less ambitious or stringent outcomes. Nevertheless, it is conceiv- able that certain international institutions other than treaty bodies (e.g., international scientific organizations) could initiate voluntarily collaborative research and research governance activities in the short term. While there are broader principles of international law that could be appealed to—for example, precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, etc.—the mechanisms for applying such principles are not well established. Such principles could be self-applied by nations but would lack any application or enforcement across borders. In the 1  See Chapter 2 for a survey of existing international conventions that either have explicitly attempted to address solar geoengineering (e.g., the UN Convention on Biological Diversity; the London Convention/ London Protocol), or could in principle form part of a global system of international SG governance given their current scope and activities (e.g., the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; the UN Conven- tion on the Law of the Sea). 162 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance particular case of an emergency situation involving unanticipated or unilateral de- ployment of SG, the UN Security Council could be convened in emergency session to respond. Options for recourse would, however, be unprecedented and subject to the veto powers of the five permanent members of the Council. In addition to the various existing treaty bodies and agreements surveyed in Chapter 2 that could potentially continue discussion of SG research and its governance (e.g., CBD, London Convention and Protocol, UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, Vienna Conven- tion and Montreal Protocol, CLRTAP, ENMOD, and UNCLOS), the topic could also be taken up by the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA), which has universal membership of all UN Parties. In spring 2019, the UNEA discussed, but did not agree to, a resolution from Switzerland that requested that the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Execu- tive Director conduct an assessment of geoengineering technologies (inclusive of SG but also going beyond it) and offer options for possible governance frameworks. As a consequence, the resolution was withdrawn. However, the UNEA could still direct UNEP to do something similar in the future, either alone or working with other UN bodies. It could also request action by one or more UN convention or treaty bodies to take up SG, as it has on other issues in the past. UNEA, or another relevant UN con- vention or treaty body, could also request a study of SG—or ongoing assessment or monitoring of the state of the science and technology—from an allied international scientific body such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)2 or the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).3 Levels of international cooperation short of UN treaty bodies or organizations are more viable options. On climate change, the past decade has seen a steady increase in ministerial-level groups of countries working in parallel to UN processes to achieve complementary goals: • In 2012, six countries (Bangladesh, Canada, Ghana, Mexico, Sweden and the United States) along with UNEP created the Climate and Clean Air Coalition 2  WMO, the International Science Council (ISC), and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi- zation (UNESCO) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission co-sponsor the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), which coordinates climate research initiatives at an international level. WCRP fosters innovation and collaboration through the organization of global meetings, workshops, and conferences (See https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wcrp-events). Scientific guidance is provided by the WCRP Joint Scientific Committee. Reynolds et al. (2017) have suggested that the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling could become the data repository and coordinator of standards for a research data commons on SG. 3  The IPCC is another potential locus for aspects of SG research governance. WMO and the UN Environ- ment Programme created the IPCC in 1988. Its objective is to provide policy makers with regular assess- ments of the scientific basis for climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC has 195 member states and draws upon the expertise of international climate experts around the globe. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. 163 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) to support research, deploy- ment, and governance initiatives to reduce non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons. This voluntary coali- tion has since grown to include more than 120 state and non-state partners, who jointly fund an array of initiatives and projects and share domestic gov- ernance frameworks. The CCAC is widely recognized as complementary to the objectives and goals of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, neither of which has specific provisions or programs related to this class of GHGs. • Similarly, Mission Innovation, a voluntary endeavor of 24 countries and the European Commission (representing most of the world’s largest economies) founded on the eve of the negotiation of the Paris Agreement, commits its members to doubling their clean energy R&D investments in “selected priority areas” by 2020–2021. It has also evolved into a global “hub” and discussion fo- rum for new cooperative initiatives, with members launching 59 collaborative research and technology programs since its founding. Mission Innovation is also tracking both public expenditures and private sector investments in clean energy, providing an important window into this important world of climate- related technology development. There are also a number of existing international scientific bodies that could serve as platforms for international cooperation and address some aspects of SG governance; for instance: • The International Science Council (ISC) is a nongovernmental organization that brings together 40 international scientific unions and associations and more than 140 national and regional scientific organizations, including acad- emies and research councils. ISC’s goals include coordinating international action on issues of scientific and public importance. ISC draws upon scientific expertise across both physical and social science disciplines. The ISC could also draw upon its partnership with the WMO’s Climate Change Research Programme. • The InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) brings together three established net- works of academies of science, medicine, and engineering: the InterAcademy Panel (the global network of science academies), the InterAcademy Medical Panel, and the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC has previously provided scientific advice on climate change. In 2010, for example, it conducted an independent review of IPCC processes and procedures. The IAP also has contributed funding to the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initia- tive (SRMGI), which was launched in 2010 by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Royal Society, and The World Academy of Sciences to build capacity and 164 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance understanding, particularly in the developing world. Although the SRMGI does not have the capacity itself to develop a governance framework for SG research, IAP could draw upon the SRMGI’s network and capacity building expertise. • The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), an interdisciplinary committee of the ISC, provides a potentially useful model for international scientific cooperation. Established in 1958, SCAR initiates, develops, and coor- dinates international scientific research in the Antarctic region and provides independent scientific advice to the Antarctic Treaty System and the IPCC. The scientific community drives SCAR activities. In 2014, for instance, SCAR convened scientists, national program directors/managers, and policy makers from 22 countries to identify priorities for Antarctic research for the next sev- eral decades (the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Science Horizon Scan, Kennicutt et al. [2014]). An institution modeled upon SCAR could provide a mechanism for international scientific coordination of a science program, the prioritization of research questions, data sharing, and the provision of scientific advice on environmental issues to international policy makers. While there are thus numerous potential models for collaboration, to date the vast majority of nations have not expressed formal views on the benefits and risks of SG research or on the merits and international architecture of research governance. It is quite possible that many national governments and civil society institutions may de- cide to oppose an expanded SG research enterprise, based on ethical, geopolitical, or scientific risk assessment grounds, and try to constrain efforts to create international governance practices and institutions. Unless and until international SG research governance emerges through one or another path, it is incumbent on any country where SG research is being conducted to create mechanisms and institutions to govern this work. While ideally, international governance practices and institutions should be created as soon as possible, in real- ity, such mechanisms may emerge only after responsibility has been embraced at the national level (as mentioned earlier)—and there is commitment by more countries to engage with research, deter unsafe research activities, or to regulate activities with potentially significant transboundary impacts. Recommendation 5.1 A U.S. national SG research program should operate under robust research governance and support the eventual development or designation of an international governance mechanism. Important elements of research governance include a research code of 165 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G conduct, a public registry for research, regular program assessment and review processes, permitting systems for outdoor experiments, guidance on intellectual property, inclusive public and stakeholder engagement processes, mechanisms for advancing international information sharing and collaboration (within research teams and among national scientific agencies), and establishment of an expert committee to advance discussions about international governance needs and strategies. 5.2 NATIONAL/DOMESTIC RESEARCH GOVERNANCE In light of the limited applicability of existing U.S. law to much SG research, particularly with regard to research that has little to no anticipated physical impacts, it is impor- tant to consider other mechanisms for the domestic governance of SG research, as discussed below. The recommendations below address concepts that are relevant to the governance of SG research in all countries, but they are largely framed in terms of applicability to U.S. institutions and the U.S. regulatory environment, as this report is the product of the U.S. National Academies’ process and committee members are most famil- iar with U.S. institutions and processes. U.S. actors have been identified in certain instances, but robust governance is very important in all jurisdictions and recom- mendations often have applicability to other countries conducting SG research. Nevertheless, as an expansion of SG research to other countries may occur in regu- latory environments that are very different from those found in the United States, the full range of challenges and opportunities in those environments is difficult to anticipate. Codes of Conduct Codes of conduct offer a mechanism for responding to environmental, social, and ethical concerns. Researchers may voluntarily adhere to codes of conduct, funders of research may require adherence to such codes as a condition of funding, and funders themselves may adhere to code provisions (Hubert and Reichwein, 2015). Codes of conduct also may serve as a foundation for more formal governance efforts, whether domestic or international. Codes of conduct typically emphasize that research should be performed for the pub- lic good. Codes of conduct often call for the maintenance and protection of the scien- 166 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance tific quality of proposed research; the recognition and application of due diligence to environmental, social, and ethical implications of research; promotion of public notice and participation; post-project monitoring; and access to information. Specific codes of conduct for SG research, such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Geoengineering Research, developed by Anna-Maria Hubert and David Reichwein at the University of Calgary (hereafter, “Calgary Code”), have been developed, vetted with various stakeholders, and proposed (see Chapters 2 and 3). Some code provisions apply specifically to outdoor experiments (e.g., atmospheric experiments with the potential for transboundary impacts without some form of acceptable prior consent should be avoided), while others apply to SG research generally (e.g., research funding should be limited to entities that prioritize mitigation and adaptation). A sanctioning body can revise a code and offer interpretative guidance as needed. However, no SG research code of conduct has achieved wide adoption by researchers, professional societies, businesses, philanthropies, or governmental institutions, and no code of conduct specific to SG has been formally sanctioned by any government, professional society, or other relevant institution. Ideally, a code of conduct would be adopted at an international level. An international scientific society could assist in the development of a code of conduct. For example, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) developed guidelines for the responsible and ethical conduct of human embryonic stem cell research; ISSCR mem- bers make a personal commitment to uphold the society’s guidelines. At this time, however, no equivalent professional society exists for the SG research community. In- stitutions that could, in principle, develop or accept a code of conduct for SG research- ers include WMO, ISC, IAC, and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). These organizations have broad international membership, enabling them to reach scientists around the world. Recommendation 5.1a SG researchers should adhere to relevant provisions of an accepted code or, if none has yet been accepted, an adequate code. At a minimum, researchers should commit to • protect the scientific quality of proposed research; • assess, monitor, and minimize potential adverse effects from research; • avoid atmospheric experiments with detectable climate or other environmental effects (experimentation thresholds are discussed further in Recommendation 6.2); 167 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G • accept research funding only from funding entities that recognize the importance of an overall balance of resources that prioritize mitigation and adaptation; • make public SG research activities, funding sources, and results; • identify and limit and, when necessary, avoid conflicts of interest; • provide for suitable levels of public and stakeholder participation and engagement independent of whether a proposed experiment has any known environmental risks (see Table 5.1 for a discussion of levels of public and stakeholder engagement); and • actively support and advance the goals of racial, gender, geographic, and economic equity in the conduct of SG research. Recommendation 5.1b Funders of SG research—including government agencies, universities, and philanthropic organizations—should mandate as a condition of funding that SG research adhere to an accepted code of conduct or, if no code has yet been accepted, a code that includes the elements enumerated in Recommendation 5.1a. Recommendation 5.1c In countries where SG research is under way, or where it is reasonably foreseeable, relevant national institutions should review existing codes of conduct for SG research, develop new codes should existing codes be found insufficient, and ultimately accept a robust code of conduct for SG research. A pathway for the development of an international code of conduct is described below. Public Registries Transparency can serve multiple ends. With respect to SG research, it can promote public understanding of SG and its risks, foster accountable and legitimate decision making, and engender trust in institutions of SG governance (Callies, 2018; Craik and Moore, 2014; Rayner et al., 2013). Transparent reporting of research can also help researchers keep track of ongoing research and share information (Nicholson et al., 2018). Moreover, transparency can facilitate transnational research coordination and collaboration and build trust between states whose research agendas may be moti- vated by self-interest (Craik and Moore, 2014). Outdoor experiments or field tests war- rant particular attention to transparency because of their potential physical impacts, 168 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance but transparency rationales apply to other types of SG research as well (Craik and Moore, 2014; Rayner et al., 2013). A public registry of SG research could be a powerful tool in an effort to promote trans- parency. For a registry to be credible, the institution maintaining the registry should be perceived as impartial (Craik and Moore, 2014). Such a registry could be established and administered by a research center, university, international research organization, government agency, or other entity. Fundamental questions in registry design include whether participation would be voluntary or mandatory, whether funders or researchers would participate, whether the registry would include only field experiments or extend to all SG research, how SG research would be defined, what information would be reported and disclosed, and how to incentivize disclosure (Craik and Moore, 2014). Useful examples of the registry approach may be found in several fields. In the medi- cal field, for example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) established in 2005 a policy requiring researchers, as a condition of consideration for publication, to post information about clinical trials in an approved public registry at the time of or before patient enrollment (Laine et al., 2007). Within the United States, Congress has mandated that sponsors and researchers post information about clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, a public database available to clinicians, researchers, and pa- tients (Laine et al., 2007).4 Clinical trials registries have also been set up in other coun- tries, driven by the leading journals’ requirements that they will only publish papers on clinical trials if those trials have been put into a public registry. To advance research, the National Institutes of Health established the Genetic Testing Registry “to advance the public health and research into the genetic basis of health and disease.” It “provides a central location for voluntary submission of genetic test information by providers.” Its “scope includes the test’s purpose, methodology, validity, evidence of the test’s usefulness, and laboratory contacts and credentials.”5 4  “ClinicalTrials.gov was created as a result of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). FDAMA required the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institutes of Health, to establish a registry of clinical trials information for both federally and privately funded trials conducted under investigational new drug applications to test the effectiveness of experimental drugs for serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.” “ClinicalTrials.gov registration requirements were expanded after Congress passed the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). Section 801 of FDAAA (FDAAA 801) requires more types of trials to be registered and additional trial registration information to be submitted.” See https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-site/background. 5  See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/. 169 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G In the climate arena, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program collects GHG information “from large emitting facilities, suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases that result in GHG emissions when used, and facilities that inject carbon dioxide underground.”6 This system was implemented under 40 CFR Part 98, following the publication on October 30, 2009, of a rule by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). GHG emitters must submit annual reports that provide data collected during the previous calendar year (EPA, 2014). With regard to SG research, reports required under the WMRA could serve as a starting point for a federal research registry, but such reports are only required for some field experiments and not at all for computer modeling or indoor experiments. Registries established in one or more nations could serve as a foundation for a multinational or international registry (see Recommendation 5.1p below). A model of this type is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Human Genome Editing Registry. Established in 2019, this registry “is a central database that collects information on clinical trials using human genome editing technologies…that uses data collected by the WHO Inter- national Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The ICTRP gathers the trial registra- tion data sets provided by Primary Registries,”7 national registries “that meet specific criteria for content, quality and validity, accessibility, unique identification, technical capacity and administration.”8 In scientific publishing, there are instances in which editors require participation in a registry as a prerequisite to publication. As mentioned previously, the ICMJE “requires, and recommends that all medical journal editors require, registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for publication.”“The ICMJE recommends that journals publish the trial registration number at the end of the abstract.”9 Recommendation 5.1d A national public SG research registry should be created to collect information on all public and private sector SG research. Recommendation 5.1e Once a national SG research registry is established, SG researchers should participate in the registry, and 6  Seehttps://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghg-reporting-program-data-sets. 7 See https://www.who.int/health-topics/ethics/human-genome-editing-registry#:~:text=The%20 Human%20Genome%20Editing%20(HGE,Trials%20Registry%20Platform%20(ICTRP). 8  See https://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/. 9  See http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial- registration.html. 170 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance scientific publications should require participation as a prerequisite to consideration for publication. Assessments and Reviews Assessments of uncertainty and the impacts of SG research can identify risks, foster transparency and public participation, and enable consideration of risks in decision making processes (Rayner et al., 2013). Assessments may consider not only physi- cal impacts, as in environmental impact assessments, but also social, economic, and other non-physical impacts, as is often done in assessments of emerging technolo- gies (Lin, 2016; Rayner et al., 2013). Programmatic-level assessments, as opposed to assessments of individual projects, allow for the evaluation of the impacts of policies or multiple projects (Lin, 2016) and could analyze cumulative impacts from multiple experiments (Burger and Gundlach, 2018). A programmatic assessment may consider the cumulative developmental trajectory of all SG research activities, regardless of in- stitutional affiliation or funding source, and need not be limited in scope to a formal program. When combined with public comment mechanisms, assessment processes can help make risks transparent and promote public engagement (Craik and Moore, 2014). Specifically, it is important to allow the public to have meaningful representative input regarding whether and how SG research proceeds (recognizing that public engagement can also improve the processes and results of SG research). Public com- ment opportunities alone, however, do not ensure effective public engagement; it is likewise important to develop mechanisms that help ensure policy decisions about research directions and priorities are responsive to public engagement (Jinnah, 2018). Assessment may be performed by the scientists undertaking the research, funders of research, an independent review body, or a government agency. Proposals are commonly subject to peer review as part of the process of determining whether to fund a research project. Assessment by an entity independent of the research sci- entists promotes impartiality and confidence in the assessment process (Rayner et al., 2013). Including social scientists, members of civil society, and natural scientists on a review body could promote the consideration of a broader range of concerns and perspectives. A transparent, open advisory body could review SG research on an ongoing basis, promote international cooperation, and recommend poli- cies and practices on SG research and research governance (Winickoff and Brown, 2013). 171 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Recommendation 5.1f Any country engaged in SG research should establish a standing advisory body composed of experts from a broad range of relevant disciplines and representatives of potentially affected communities to recommend policies and practices on SG research and research governance. Recommendation 5.1g Any country engaged in SG research should prepare programmatic assessments that collectively assess the health, environmental, and social impacts of all SG activities that it sponsors or approves and any SG research program that it adopts. Such assessments, which should be revised on a regular basis, should incorporate broad and meaningful public engagement and protocols for public engagement. Recommendation 5.1h As a condition of funding for any proposed outdoor SG experiments, research funders should require independent peer review of the research and an assessment of the plausible impacts of the research. Consistent with the overarching need for broad participation in SG research, the peer review should include an assessment of public and stakeholder engagement in the design and review of research. Permitting A permit is a “statutorily authorized . . . granting of permission to do that which would otherwise be statutorily prohibited” (Biber and Ruhl, 2016). Permits may be issued in the form of general permits, for which an approved category of activities is allowed unless approval is withdrawn, or specific permits, for which an applicant must request permission to engage in an activity that is otherwise prohibited (Biber and Ruhl, 2016). If well designed, permit requirements (or other funding conditions or approval pro- cesses) can be an effective way to address some concerns associated with research. Poorly designed requirements may create undue barriers to research (Parker, 2014). Approval processes may be designed in different ways—for example, to require af- firmative approval of a permit application, to presume approval in the absence of objections, or to simply require notice (Bodle et al., 2014; Parker, 2014). A general permit system requires more work upfront to establish the parameters and conditions of the permit. General permits can cover the activities of a large number of actors at a relatively low cost. They can also reduce or eliminate the need for a permit application 172 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance or for individualized approval of a contemplated activity (Biber and Ruhl, 2016). In con- trast, a specific permit system shifts workload to the processing of permit applications (Biber and Ruhl, 2016). Specific permits, which can be tailored to particular situations, are better suited for activities in which the risks of harm are significant or highly vari- able (Biber and Ruhl, 2016). Different types of SG experiments (e.g., laboratory, process studies, and scaling tests) might be subject to different types of permitting systems, or even exempted, based on anticipated risks.10 Under existing U.S. law, indoor SG experiments, outdoor observational research, and some outdoor experiments could take place without giving notice to the public or to the government, or seeking government approval, though, as noted earlier, the WMRA requires any person engaging in weather modification activity—defined to include “any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behavior, or dynamics of the atmosphere”—to submit a report of such activity. Some SG field experiments would be subject to this reporting requirement, but the WMRA does not require a permit for weather modification activity, and such experiments may not trigger state permitting requirements for weather modification. In the case of SG research, a permit requirement can promote information gathering on SG research activities and increase their transparency, ensure that harmful impacts are minimized, and provide public assurance that research is being undertaken in a responsible manner. The need to obtain social license for SG research in light of its mission-driven nature, and as suggested, for example, by public and stakeholder reac- tions to the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) experi- ment, points in favor of a permit requirement or similar form of governance. Recommendation 5.1i All outdoor SG atmospheric experiments should be subject to a national permitting system. Permitting systems should be designed to encompass transboundary research and research performed by international research teams. The specific elements of a permitting system (e.g., the criteria/ standards that the permitting entity would apply in determining whether or not to issue a permit) would need to be developed by the entity that assumes responsibility for the permitting system. The United States does not currently have a permitting requirement that 10  While some SG will not engender physical risks, physical risks are not the only risks of concern to the public. To understand the range of issues that may raise public concern, transparency in the conduct of research is critical (Dilling and Hauser 2013). 173 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G clearly covers experiments of the type envisioned. Such a requirement would need to be introduced through the regulatory or legislative process. Until a uniform permitting system is developed, researchers would be expected to follow precautions captured within the previous recommendations in this section. Furthermore, the existence of a permitting system would not exempt researchers from continuing to follow recommendations that retain their relevance even in the presence of a permitting system, for example, adherence to a code of conduct. Data Sharing The National Academies study Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for the 21st Century noted that openness and sharing of scientific information are fundamental to the progress of science and the effective functioning of the research enterprise (NASEM, 2018b). The report describes a global research community trend toward an open science ecosystem to enable free availability to scholarly publications and research data. Sharing of SG research data on both a national and international level offers many benefits. Data sharing enables other scientists to reproduce or replicate reported work, strengthening scientific rigor. It also allows researchers to bring data from multiple fields to bear on their work, opening up new areas of inquiry and expanding the op- portunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. Data collected for one purpose may be reused to build upon the initial field of research or to study other fields of research. This reuse of data also facilities more effective use of resources, enabling faster and more inclusive dissemination of knowledge. The United States has a long history of promoting public access to research data aris- ing from federally funded research. The Director of the Office of Science and Technol- ogy Policy issued a February 2013 Memorandum “Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Science,” which directed federal agencies with more than $100 million in annual research and development (R&D) expenditures to develop plans for increasing public access to the results of research they support, including scholarly publications and digital data. The memorandum recognized that “making re- search results accessible to the largest possible audience—other researchers, business innovators, entrepreneurs, teachers, students, and the general public—can boost the returns from Federal investments in R&D. Increased access expands opportunities for new scientific knowledge to be applied to areas as diverse as health, energy, environ- mental protection, agriculture, and national security and to catalyze innovative break- 174 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance throughs that drive economic growth and prosperity.” As a result, 17 federal science agencies have issued public access plans covering digital data. Data sharing require- ments are typically implemented by agency policies or grant conditions.11 On an international level, data sharing has been an integral component of interna- tional scientific research collaboration. For example, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a recommendation on principles and guidelines for access to research data from public funding in 2006 to foster inter- national cooperation (OECD, 2017); the Group on Earth Observations (GEOSS), an intergovernmental group dedicated to sharing environmental data and information collected from Earth observing systems, established data sharing principles which promote the full and open exchange of data with minimal possible costs, delay and re- striction as a foundation for GEOSS (GEOSS, 2015); and the Multinational Coordinated Arabidopsis thaliana Genome Research Project12 included a plan for data sharing, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) implemented data sharing requirements through the grant process. Recommendation 5.1j SG researchers should share their data and research results openly and freely. Researchers are encouraged to provide open access to publications and to register their projects through any available domestic and international research registries. Recommendation 5.1k Funders and publishers of SG research should assist and encourage researchers to share their data and research results openly and freely. Intellectual Property As discussed in Chapter 2, intellectual property law may influence the pace and direc- tion of SG research by incentivizing innovation or by restricting others’ access to inno- 11  For publications, the majority of agencies require investigators to make peer-reviewed journal articles resulting from funded research publicly accessible in designated repositories not more than 1 year after their official date of publication. 12  The Multinational Coordinated Arabidopsis thaliana Genome Research Project unified the efforts of international teams who had been decoding this genome sequence since the early 1990s. In the United States, an interagency program began in 1996 with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Arabidopsis researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia and Japan formed an ad hoc committee and drafted a plan for the Multinational Co-ordinated Arabidopsis Genome Project. See IOM, 1996 and NSF, 2002. 175 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G vation. To date, patents or other intellectual property protections have not obstructed SG research, and the dominant practice among SG researchers has been to share and make data publicly available (Reynolds et al., 2017). The expansion of SG research and involvement of commercial actors in such research may, however, reduce the open- ness that has characterized the sharing of SG research and of data. National law governs many requirements for patents, and patent protections are lim- ited to the jurisdiction where the patent was issued. Researchers may, however, seek access to an invention patented by inventors in other countries or inventions that are patented in multiple countries. International treaties administered by the World Intel- lectual Property Organization (WIPO)13 (e.g., the Paris Convention,14 the Patent Law Treaty,15 and the Patent Cooperation Treaty16) have been developed to coordinate and harmonize patenting practices and provide mechanisms for the resolution intellectual property disputes (Reynolds et al., 2017).17 Unobstructed national and international access to SG research and data can facilitate further research (Contreras, 2015), promote transparency, and foster public engage- ment. Pledges not to assert patents have been made with respect to open source software, information and communication technologies, environmental technologies, and life science technologies (Contreras, 2015). National and international efforts that enable researchers to access relevant patented technologies at little or no cost, or that encourage pledges from patent holders to refrain from asserting their patents against researchers, can stimulate research. The assertion of broad patent rights could influ- 13  “WIPO is the global forum for intellectual property (IP) services, policy, information and coopera- tion.”“A self-funding agency of the United Nations, with 193 member states,” WIPO’s “mission is to lead the development of a balanced and effective international IP system that enables innovation and creativity for the benefit of all.” Its “mandate, governing bodies and procedures are set out in the WIPO Convention, which established WIPO in 1967.” See https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/. 14  The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, as amended on September 28, 1979, provides for national treatment, the right of priority, and other common rules in the field of patent law. See https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12633. 15  The Patent Law Treaty of 2000 provides common requirements for procedures before national/ regional patent offices. See https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12642. 16  The Patent Cooperation Treaty establishes an international patent filing system. See https://www. wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/pct/summary_pct.html. 17  In addition, the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Prop- erty Rights (TRIPS) contains IP rules related to patents. Provision 30 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that members may be provided limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of the patent and do not unrea- sonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interest of third parties. A 2006 OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Working Paper 2006/2,“Research Use of Patented Knowledge,” authored by Chris Dent, Paul Jensen, Sophie Waller, and Beth Webster, discuss TRIPS Provision 30 in the context of research use exemptions in national patent laws. 176 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance ence technological development in favor of private interests and undermine public trust in SG technologies (Reynolds et al., 2017). Indeed, as noted above, the field trial component of the SPICE project was suspended in the wake of concerns regarding patent rights to the technology being tested. Pledges not to assert patents18 or providing for royalty-free licenses are imple- mentable via documented, uniform, and internationally coordinated commitments or via informal single commitments. Recommendation 5.1l SG researchers should pledge not to assert patents relating to SG against other researchers who are conducting related research. Participation and Stakeholder Engagement If SG research evolves from its current fragmented state to a full-scale research enter- prise, then ambitious, inclusive, and effective public and stakeholder engagement will be important for the development of an SG research enterprise that could be widely viewed as legitimate, useful, and deserving of public support. Public engagement can “improve the quality [and] legitimacy” of environmental decisions and strengthen the capacity of all participants—including scientists and other experts—to develop poli- cies informed by scientific knowledge and social values (NRC, 2008). Designing effective public engagement requires determining when, why, in what contexts, by whom, and who to engage. While it may not be feasible or desirable for every SG research project to have its own dedicated public engagement effort, it will be important for researchers to consider how public engagement strategies should be implemented and how the results of such efforts can feed back into research projects (at the individual investigator and, where applicable, programmatic levels). One size does not fit all. For example, while computer modeling studies do not physi- cally release particles into the environment, they can create a durable set of future imaginaries for the public that embody value choices (McLaren, 2018). While not every project needs to (or should) conduct its own public engagement effort, mechanisms could be developed at a program level to share public engagement findings with all researchers, who could consider the implications for their own research directions and 18 “A patent pledge is a publicly announced intervention by patent-owning entities (‘pledgers’) to out- license active patents to the restricted or unrestricted public free from or bound to certain conditions for a reasonable or no monetary compensation.” See Ehrnsperger and Tietze (2019). 177 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G priorities. And, although field experiments might have negligible physical impacts, the implications of conducting field experiments in the open environment (over particular jurisdictions where people live) may trigger needs for dedicated public engagement efforts to build trust and understand what is permissible to the public and what is not. Public engagement in SG research is supported by normative, instrumental, and substantive rationales (Flegal et al., 2019; see also Fiorino, 1990). Given the tremen- dous array of stakeholders that could ultimately be affected by SG implementation, it is important to develop mechanisms for meaningful representative input regarding whether and how research proceeds. While no formal guidelines for the design and governance of such engagement have been developed specifically for SG research, guidelines and tools designed and applied to support and encourage meaningful public and stakeholder engagement in U.S. and international environmental decision making are broadly applicable. The public participation guide developed by EPA (2012), for example, was “designed with government agencies in mind, to help those who must manage the process where public participation is important for decision making, while incorporating fair treatment, meaningful involvement and social inclusion of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation or income.” The EPA guidelines describe meaningful public participation as requiring “more than simply holding public meetings or hearings or collecting public comment.” Rather, it entails “seeking public input at the specific points in the decision process and on the specific issues where such input has a real potential to help shape the decision or ac- tion.” It consists “of a series of activities and actions over the full lifespan of a project to afford stakeholders the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.” Both EPA and the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) detail five possible forms, or levels, that public participation in decision making might take. These range from simply informing the public about a decision to be made to empowering the public with full decision making authority. Table 5.2 describes these levels with examples and specific reference to SG research. The level and specific approach to public and stakeholder engagement will likely vary across research domains: what is most well suited for the co-development of SG modeling scenarios, if applicable, may differ from effective practices for public and stakeholder engagement on decisions about stratospheric aerosol injection experi- ments.19 Given the controversial nature of this issue and the global-scale impact of 19  Note that the committee has not attempted to specify acceptable levels of engagement for various SG research domains—these should be developed in consultation with engagement experts and stake- holder groups and incorporated into SG codes of conduct as described above. 178 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance TABLE 5.2 Levels of Public and Stakeholder Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance Level of Engagement Explanation Example Methods Inform Provide public and stakeholders with Fact sheets, educational information on risks and potential of SG webinars research in the context of climate change. Consult Understand public and stakeholder Public comment periods on preferences on scope and focus of SG federal rulemakings, focus research. groups Involve Engage with stakeholders early and Deliberative workshops with sets throughout a process with multiple of stakeholders opportunities to provide input and nonbinding recommendations on various decisions over SG research design. Provide feedback to show how input influenced a decision or a response as to why it was not used. Collaborate In addition to the engagement described Deliberative workshops building in “involve,” include stakeholders directly toward consensus agreement with decision making with an intention with decision makers toward building consensus/coming to an agreement. Ultimate decision making remains with the governance body. Empower In addition to the engagement process Informed consent in human in “collaborate,” provide decision-making subjects research authority to the engaged public. SOURCE: Adapted from the EPA Public Participation Guide (EPA, 2012), IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (IAP2, 2014), and Talati and Frumhoff (2020). potential deployment, a reliance only on low-level engagement mechanisms (“inform” and “consult”) is likely not sufficient, especially if and when outdoor experimental components are included in SG research. Rather, the legitimacy and effectiveness of research programs to inform decision making may require more inclusive public and stakeholder engagement efforts (e.g., at levels of “involve” and “collaborate”). The committee has not attempted to specify acceptable levels of engagement for various SG research domains. Rather, these should be developed in consultation with engagement experiments and stakeholder groups, draw upon lessons from efforts to develop and test approaches to public engagement in SG research (see Box 5.1), 179 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G and be incorporated into mechanisms for public and stakeholder engagement in the design of a research program (see Chapter 4) and in codes of conduct as described above. BOX 5.1 Testing an Approach to Public Engagement in Decision Making over Outdoor SG Experiments Even small-scale proposed outdoor SG experiments draw public attention and scrutiny regard- ing concerns over possible direct risks as well as broader questions about the risks and efficacy of potential larger-scale outdoor SG experiments and potential deployment (see related discussion in Section 2.5b and Section 6.3). Hence, such efforts also provide important opportunities to develop, test, and learn from protocols designed to engage public input in decision making over whether and how such experiments should proceed. Protocols for public engagement over outdoor SG research have recently been developed by the independent advisory committee established by Harvard University to advise on Harvard’s proposed Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). In SCoPEx, Harvard research- ers propose to release small quantities of calcium carbonate into the stratosphere from a balloon to assess their behavior and potential feasibility for larger-scale deployment. The SCoPEx advisory committee has developed a societal engagement protocol to be carried out in advance on any experimental release of particles. Finalized in January 2021 after public and expert review of a draft proposal, the SCoPEx protocol includes a series of deliberative dialogues with representative publics in the local area of the proposed experiment, as well as broader input solicited from the global “research, advocacy, social equity, and other communities” with interests in the research.a Such inputs would be informed by briefing materials that describe potential local scale impacts of the SCoPEx experiment, and the broader impacts and ethical issues associ- ated with deploying (or not deploying) SG as a climate response. Researchers would draw upon this input as well as other considerations (e.g., a scientific review of the proposed experiment) to develop recommendations to Harvard on whether the experiment should proceed. Their recom- mendation, and the inputs upon which it was based, would be made public in advance of any particle release experiments. This approach is broadly consistent with the nonbinding “involve” level of public engagement described in Table 5.2, and it could provide valuable opportunities to gain insights and inform the design of other future engagement efforts related to outdoor SG experiments. Such efforts do of course point to many questions that will need to be explored—for instance, regarding the effectiveness of the engagement processes utilized, the criteria used to assess effectiveness, and the appropriate scope of engagement and scope of concerns to consider in this engagement. (See “Public Perception and Engagement” in Chapter 6 for a list of other relevant questions that could be studied as part of a comprehensive SG research and engagement program.) a See https://scopexac.com/societal-review/. 180 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance Participation in SG research, governance discussions, and public engagement exer- cises has been extremely limited. To date, most public engagement initiatives have been centered in wealthy nations such as the United States. If this focus on wealthy nations continues, it could create inequities in the development of SG knowledge and governance and limit the range of knowledge that is produced. The current public understanding of SG, while low, will likely grow as SG receives more atten- tion. Broader and more inclusive engagement could contribute to greater justice and legitimacy for research and research governance, and help avoid the perception that SG may be developed solely by one party or a small number of parties without international input or cooperation, further exacerbating climate-related inequities. Research suggests that, to be effective, inclusivity needs to be institutionalized as part of SG research and research governance through the establishment of system- atic and sustained opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement. Efforts to foster greater diversity and inclusion within the community of profes- sional SG researchers, as well as those involved in developing research governance, can also play an important role. See Box 2.1 for discussion of the current challenges of limited diversity within the SG research field. Greater researcher diversity—along with inclusion, which requires that diverse contributors are respected, involved, and empowered—can contribute to a broader and more robust research process and more effective innovation (Hofstra et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2017; Page, 2017). For example, climate and social scientists from throughout the world could bring valuable region- specific knowledge and perspectives relevant to identifying priority research ques- tions, developing and refining models, and assessing possible impacts. Winickoff et al. (2015) argue that greater geographical diversity, including broader engagement by researchers and experts from the Global South, will be important in “defining the most relevant climate engineering problems; designing models and experiments that best study them; collecting climate data where there are current gaps; and facilitating the exchange between experts and the broader society.” Recommendation 5.1m Public and stakeholder engagement in significant SG research and research governance decisions can enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of SG research programs. SG research and research governance should prioritize inclusive and equitable participation by individuals, institutions, and nations throughout the world, with particular attention to climate-vulnerable peoples, indigenous peoples, and the Global South. Any U.S. SG research program should include broad public and stakeholder engagement as a key component. 181 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Recommendation 5.1n SG researchers and funders should establish mechanisms to promote a diverse and inclusive community of SG researchers and research governance experts and set specific, measurable goals. These goals may be advanced through a variety of mechanisms, including offering incentives for international collaboration (e.g., requiring proposals to include stakeholder or international researcher participation, when appropriate), addressing gender and other biases in peer-review processes, supporting research and research governance training opportunities, and building capacity in underrepresented regions and nations. Researchers and funders should track progress in meeting these goals. 5.3 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH GOVERNANCE In addition to the recommendations for domestic governance of SG research dis- cussed above, complementary action should be taken at the international level. International Assessment As discussed earlier, a resolution was introduced in 2019 by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) requesting that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) lead an assessment of geoengineering technologies. A lead negotiator involved indicated that relatively few negotiators participating in these de- liberations were prepared for a discussion of geoengineering.20 News reports from this UNEA session also noted that some parties opposed introducing this new initiative through UNEA, arguing that it should instead be taken up by the UNFCCC (Chemnick, 2019). This disagreement regarding where a discussion on SG governance should take place can in turn cut the conversation short in different forums before it starts. Nonetheless, an authoritative international survey that gauges the scale and scope of SG research activities would be valuable. For those concerned that research on geoen- gineering could displace GHG mitigation research, an assessment of geoengineering research—particularly if updated annually—could provide an important benchmark 20  Franz Xaver Perrez, Head, International Affairs Division, Switzerland’s Federal Office and Lecturer of International Environmental Law, University of Bern School of Law, Remarks Before the Committee, July 22, 2019. This may reflect the fact that active geoengineering research is under way in only a small number of countries to date. 182 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance to compare the relative levels of funding going to these different activities. An annual report could also form the basis for a global registry for SG research. Recommendation 5.1o An appropriate UN body or bodies (e.g., UN Environment Programme, UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, WMO) should conduct an biannual international survey of SG research activities, including but not limited to assessment of the funding levels, the duration and intended goals or objectives of existing and projected activities. International Registry of SG Research An international assessment (such as that described above) might be limited by the availability of data and cooperation among countries, philanthropies, and the private sector, but a registry could eventually become more comprehensive and informative with increasing levels of participation by national governments that have effective means of acquiring information within their borders. Broad, meaningful, and verifi- able participation in an international registry also could compel parties both to create their own authoritative domestic registries and to participate fully in the international registry. Funders, publishers, and others could require participation in the registry. WHO recently created a registry for human genome clinical trials. The initial phase will use the ICTRP, a WHO entity. The lessons learned in the establishment of the WHO reg- istry could inform the development of an SG registry. There is also precedent for such mechanisms at WMO, which established a registry of weather modification projects in the 1960s in response to international concerns at the time. Recommendation 5.1p An international registry or other reporting mechanism on SG research should be created and administered through an appropriate international body. Data should be gathered through a number of means, including at the country level, with each participating nation responsible for gathering information on all research, based on inputs from individual researchers and from civil society organizations tracking SG activity. 183 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Promotion of International Cooperation and Co-development on Research Teams A central goal of SG research is to understand the relative risks and benefits of differ- ent SG strategies and the distribution of these risks and benefits. An SG program that only benefits a small minority is likely not worth pursuing, especially if it magnifies risks for a majority and exacerbates already-existing global inequalities and vulner- abilities to climate change. As Chhetri et al. (2018) argue, international cooperation in SG research can provide a hedge against such outcomes. International cooperation can begin with research teams and partnerships, in which researchers can bring to a common endeavor their understanding of differing national circumstances. International research programs provide opportunities to build trust among parties and open channels for cooperation that may eventually translate into channels for international cooperation on governance. Such partnerships provide op- portunities for diffusion of best practices (e.g., through codes of conduct) and proto- cols for environmental and health safety. As noted in Chhetri et al. (2018), “State and private funders that choose to fund SG research should give priority to international teams and partnerships, keeping in mind that the scale and type of research will influ- ence what level of partnership is possible for any particular undertaking” (ibid). One good example of an effort to incentivize international research engagement is the Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA), carried out in the early 2000s. The LBA’s ecology mission, sponsored by NASA in collaboration with the government of Brazil, was “designed to better understand cycles of water, energy, carbon and nutrients, resulting from the changes in Amazonian vegetation cover, and associated climatic and environmental consequences at local, regional, and global scales.”21 LBA-Ecology science teams trained more than 500 students and were “involved in transferring of appropriate technological skills and capacity building in collaboration with graduate programs in Brazilian and South American institutions through a variety of initiatives.” The LBA “provided infra-structure and financial sup- port for a large number of scientific related activities for capability enhancement and dissemination of science.”22 Recommendation 5.1q Funders of SG research should promote international cooperation—including with participants from the Global South—within research teams by giving priority to 21  See https://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sg/lba.html. 22  See https://lbaeco-archive.ornl.gov/lbaeco/out/out_activities.htm. 184 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance research efforts that include substantial international membership or institutional cooperation or, possibly in some cases, by requiring such cooperation and co-development as a condition for support, especially for large-scale or long-term projects. Promotion of International Cooperation Among National Scientific Agencies National research funding agencies, individually or as members of a national program, can promote international cooperation in SG research through coordination with other national-level research programs. Ideally, participants would include both na- tions that are funding SG research and members of the broader research community from countries that do not have national-level research programs. Some potential models for international coordination among national funding agencies include the Belmont Forum23 and the Multinational Coordinated Arabidopsis Genome Research Project.24 Cooperative activities may enhance international coordination among scien- tists and create a conduit for promoting best practices, even in the absence of “hard” governance institutions (Reynolds et al., 2017). Recommendation 5.1r Science agencies in countries that are funding SG research should advance international cooperation by coordinating with other national and regional level SG research programs. This cooperation should include • sharing information on national programs and effective practices, including codes of conduct; • coordinating joint calls for research proposals; • promoting inclusive engagement opportunities; • promoting access to data from funded research projects; • supporting partners from underrepresented countries; and • exploring whether there is mutual interest in creating and funding an international facility for SG research. 23  The Belmont Forum is a partnership of funding organizations, international science councils, and regional consortia committed to international transdisciplinary research for understanding, mitigating, and adapting to global environmental change. Members include the United States, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, the Ivory Coast, Mexico, and South Africa. The Forum adopted an open data policy and principles. See http://www.belmontforum.org/. 24  See footnote 12 above. 185 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G If not already undertaken by another international body, science- funding agencies could also establish a registry for research projects. Voluntary Coordination and Cooperation by Countries and Non-State Actors Negotiation of a new UN-based international body or agreement specific to SG is extremely unlikely at this time or in the near term. There are no comparable UN-level treaties or agreements on other climate-relevant technologies, and, as noted above, some observers believe that the level of familiarity with SG research among environ- mental ministries and departments is relatively low. Reaching an agreement for an existing international convention or treaty body to take responsibility for SG research governance, while more likely, is improbable in the near term, especially if the goal of such an agreement is to establish a binding governance mechanism. Nevertheless, there are pathways to achieving substantial international cooperation on climate-re- lated governance among countries.25 The CCAC, Mission Innovation, and other similar multilateral climate-focused institutions have demonstrated, with varying degrees of success, the potential for a group of self-selected countries to identify and collectively address a neglected and important area of needed environmental cooperation; pool resources; develop a common understanding of risk; coordinate research (by promot- ing efficiency, avoiding redundancy, saving money, identifying research gaps, etc.); and create global norms of transparency, accountability, and responsibility. Recommendation 5.1s A coalition of state and non-state actors should self-organize to promote international information sharing and cooperation on SG research and research governance through activities including (but not limited to) the following: • Piloting a transparency mechanism to share information on the current state, scale, and goals of national research programs. • Providing grants for pilot projects or partnerships with countries that are underrepresented in the global research environment (e.g., capacity building institutions like the DECIMALS [Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for Solar Radiation Management] program). 25  However, the models discussed have not been applied specifically to SG. 186 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance • Providing grants for SG-related public education and engagement initiatives, particularly those that increase understanding of differing consequences around the world. • Creating working groups to ° develop common frameworks for understanding the risks and ben- efits of SG as research evolves over time; ° assess, evaluate, and, if necessary, author a code of conduct for re- sponsible research in SG; ° share and develop best practices for regulating risk, promote a re- sponsible research environment, and investigate other elements of potential global architecture on governance; and ° investigate issues of liability, compensation, risk sharing, and other options to address possible harms that could result from SG. At present, we cannot predict which state or non-state actors would take the lead in creating a coalition like the one envisioned. As in other international forums like the one envisioned here, different countries would appoint different lead agencies or ministries. It is expected that the responsible parties in each country would be identi- fied by their national governments, and, as has been the case with similar efforts in the past, full participation from each country would be worked out at an intergovernmen- tal level. Public and Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms to foster public engagement in SG research may be more feasible to implement at the national level, given the limitations of international conventions and agreements. Nonetheless, every effort should be made to ensure that sound public engagement practices are applied when SG research governance is taken up by inter- national institutions and that engagement activities are expanded when possible and appropriate. Most international institutions target particular stakeholder groups (e.g., Business and Industry, Children and Youth, or Farmers). Not all international institu- tions recognize all publics as relevant stakeholders. Some focus on certain communi- ties rather than others, such as the special status afforded fishing constituencies in the relevant UN agreements on oceans. While this is appropriate in certain contexts (including this example), it is important that any international institution that engages in SG research governance examine the scope of its rules and policies on stakeholder engagement. 187 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Recommendation 5.1t If SG research governance is taken up by an international governance body, then inclusive engagement opportunities for stakeholder groups recognized by that body should be implemented at the first opportunity. The adequacy of the breadth of recognized stakeholders in that institution and the depth of stakeholder engagement should be examined, using the UN Environment Programme’s Handbook on Stakeholder Engagement and other similar protocols as guidance. Mechanisms have evolved to help explain new and emerging technologies to broader audiences and gauge civic reactions to these technologies. In the field of synthetic biology, for example, NSF funded the Multi-Site Public Engagement with Science–Syn- thetic Biology project (MSPES), a 3-year effort dedicated to public outreach. “The core goal of MSPES was to promote meaningful conversations and interactions between scientists and public audiences through outreach events hosted by informal learn- ing institutions nationwide, using synthetic biology as the science topic of interest” (Rockman et al, 2018). Similar engagement strategies have been used to evaluate the public’s response to and awareness of SG (Kaplan et al., 2019). Most of these exercises have focused on nationally homogeneous participant groups, but there is added value when participants interact with people from different countries (see Box 5.2). Recommendation 5.1u Transnational exercises designed to gauge the civic response to SG research and research governance issues (e.g., the “World Wide Views” multisite citizen consultation) should be promoted and adequately supported. Such exercises could be sponsored by appropriate global or regional bodies, such as the voluntary international association described in Recommendation 5.1s above.26 Such work can also be supported by federal agencies or philanthropies. Addressing Anticipatory International Governance While this report focuses on recommendations for research governance, some field tests of proposed technology platforms could effectively be viewed as deployment or could incur transboundary effects that would likely be objectionable by some parties. It is also possible that certain SG technologies could be deployed unilaterally by states 26  Or, for example, under the auspices of the Escazú Agreement for Latin America and the Caribbean or the Aarhus Convention for Europe. 188 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Solar Geoengineering Research Governance BOX 5.2 World Wide Views Citizen Consultations World Wide Views is a multisite citizen consultation. It was developed and has been used three times for global citizen consultations, but it can also be used at the regional and national level. In these exercises, citizens at multiple sites debate the same policy-related questions on a given issue on the same day and individually vote for prepared answers to the questions posed. Votes are collected and reported to the World Wide Views website, where results can be compared as they arrive. Comparisons can be made among countries, continents, and different groupings, such as developing and developed countries. The results are subsequently analyzed and presented to policy makers.a World Wide Views is coordinated by the Danish Board of Technology in collaboration with the World Wide Views Alliance, a global network of partners including public councils, think tanks, parliamentary technology assessment institutions, nongovernmental civil society organizations, and universities.b A list of the countries and partners that have participated in the three global consultations (World Wide Views on Global Warming [2009], World Wide Views on Biodiversity [2012], and World Wide Views on Climate and Energy [2015]) is available online.c a See http://wwviews.org/the-world-wide-views-method/. b See http://wwviews.org/the-world-wide-views-alliance/. c See http://wwviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/wwviews_country_list_2009-2012-2015.pdf. or non-state actors well before there is sufficient scientific understanding of the vi- ability and risks of these technologies. Responsible governance is necessarily anticipa- tory (Guston, 2014), and, in the case of SG, it is appropriate to evaluate different future conditions under which field experiments with transboundary impacts or deployment might be actively contemplated by one or more parties. Establishment of a high-level international committee charged by the UN Secretary General to assess hypothetical technologies is unlikely and perhaps imprudent. A group akin to the High-Level Panel of Imminent Persons that was enlisted by the Secretary General to write a report on options for the Sustainable Development Goals (prior to their negotiation in 2015), for example, seems inadvisable, as this could lead to overconfidence that some form of SG could resolve the climate crisis or raise fears of imminent deployment of a technology that some fear would exacerbate global inequality. At this stage, an advisory ad hoc committee on anticipatory governance seems more advisable, either composed of individual experts or sub-contracted to a collection of governmental and non-governmental research institutions, and report- ing to an appropriate international body. 189 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

R E F L E C T I N G S U N L I G H T : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S F O R S O L A R G E O E N G I N E E R I N G Recommendation 5.1v An ad hoc working group under the auspices of the UN General Assembly or another international body should be created to address future governance needs for SG research. It could provide a range of deliverables including, but not limited to, assessments of •  applicable principles of international law embedded in existing the conventions, treaties, or agreements that could be brought to bear in the case of the emergence of an international debate (in the UN Security Council or elsewhere) in anticipation of or response to SG field tests with transboundary effects or actual SG deployment; • which existing international conventions, treaties, or agreements and associated governance regimes could have jurisdiction in the case of SG field tests with transboundary effects or actual deployment; •  strengths and weaknesses of possible institutional the settings for making international decisions on SG research and research governance; •  potential for SG research and possible SG deployment the to exacerbate or ameliorate global inequalities; • both the possibility and ethical permissibility of various approaches to address harm and compensation issues, including harms that may arise with SG field tests with transboundary effects or as a result of SG deployment in the absence of the existence of an applicable international liability mechanism (see discussion in Chapter 2); •  adequacy of existing resources for capacity building the related to SG research in developing countries, and advisability of opening some existing pools of climate finance to SG research or establishing new sources of funding; and •  intergenerational implications of SG research, development, the and potential deployment—examining, for example, how to take into account principles of intergenerational equity, considering the intergenerational benefits and burdens associated with SG, as well as the institutional challenges that would be involved in a multigenerational SG deployment (including initiation, monitoring and ongoing management, and eventual termination). 190 PREPUBLICATION COPY—Uncorrected Proofs

Next: 6 An Integrated Agenda for Solar Geoengineering Research »
Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Climate change is creating impacts that are widespread and severe for individuals, communities, economies, and ecosystems around the world. While efforts to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts are the first line of defense, researchers are exploring other options to reduce warming. Solar geoengineering strategies are designed to cool Earth either by adding small reflective particles to the upper atmosphere, by increasing reflective cloud cover in the lower atmosphere, or by thinning high-altitude clouds that can absorb heat. While such strategies have the potential to reduce global temperatures, they could also introduce an array of unknown or negative consequences.

This report concludes that a strategic investment in research is needed to enhance policymakers' understanding of climate response options. The United States should develop a transdisciplinary research program, in collaboration with other nations, to advance understanding of solar geoengineering's technical feasibility and effectiveness, possible impacts on society and the environment, and social dimensions such as public perceptions, political and economic dynamics, and ethical and equity considerations. The program should operate under robust research governance that includes such elements as a research code of conduct, a public registry for research, permitting systems for outdoor experiments, guidance on intellectual property, and inclusive public and stakeholder engagement processes.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!