7 hours ago
8
Your editorial (8 December) says that it is “hard to disagree” with calls to ban research into climate interventions or geoengineering solutions, citing well-worn tropes about a “termination shock” scenario and a dislike of private-sector involvement in the field. The pretext for forming this opinion – and claiming it represents all of Africa – appears to be the brief reference in a joint statement earlier this year from the African environmental ministers.
I can’t help feeling that the Guardian is being played. Every advance in human technology elicits cries from a vocal few that a line must be drawn that cannot be crossed. Usually seeded in the corridors of western NGOs, legitimate concerns are whipped up into fearmongering and luddism, with the goal of holding back scientific inquiry.
We saw this with genetic modification in agriculture, it’s been ever present in the anti-nuclear camp, and it’s back again – betting against human agency in the face of increasing climate impact. A lot of people want to reduce climate risks, and the range of plausible actions that could be taken to avert suffering is thankfully getting broader. This is especially important as climate impacts escalate far faster than predicted. But to evaluate new ideas requires more research – carried out responsibly and transparently.
Compared with the reckless experiment that humanity is conducting with the atmosphere, exploring if we can increase the reflectivity of the planet (which is currently dimming, stoking climate risks even further) is a tiny, temporary and reversible action that could have profoundly beneficial outcomes.
Time has shown that previous “ban science” campaigns were wrongheaded and to the detriment of countries that are most exposed to environmental risks. The morally correct action for newspapers like the Guardian is to raise awareness objectively and to allow scientific inquiry to help us out of the mess we are in.
Bryony Worthington
Lead author, Climate Change Act
Your editorial advocates the “precautionary principle” – better to do nothing than to put risky technology under Donald Trump’s control. No one is promoting solar geoengineering as a solution to global heating. It’s a stopgap that may become our only strategy if we fail to curb CO2 emissions. We are already well down the dangerous road of net zero, where we are promised that untried technologies can offset our emissions so that we can carry on with business as usual. To make a difference, these carbon dioxide removal schemes would need to draw down some 30bn tonnes of CO2 a year.
One form of solar geoengineering is to spray particles into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth – solar radiation modification (SRM). Cooling of 10C can be achieved by spraying 10m tonnes of material. There are other strategies, including spraying seawater to make clouds more reflective. All these ideas are the subject of serious research, in universities around the world, that takes ethical and governance considerations seriously.
Solar geoengineering doesn’t cut greenhouse gas emissions – there is no suggestion that it should. What is clear is that the rate at which we are reducing emissions and devising methods to remove CO2 are not fast enough. SRM is, unfortunately, becoming a necessity. We cannot afford the risk of doing nothing.
Prof Hugh Hunt
Deputy director, Centre for Climate Repair, University of Cambridge
We were dismayed by your editorial on the purported African view on solar geoengineering. The view was not reflective of the discourse that took place in the margins of UN environment assembly in Nairobi.
First, the published view conflates solar radiation modification (SRM) deployment with research. The current debate is not about embracing or rejecting SRM as a solution; it is about gaining more knowledge and widening informed dialogue that can make us better prepared for the hard choices that may lie ahead.
The issue of geoengineering is increasingly important as stakeholders seek solutions for potential worst-case scenarios against the backdrop of inadequate action and increasing impacts. We must ensure the all stakeholders have an equal seat at the table.
African and other stakeholders have the right to this information to make informed decisions for themselves. Deployment rightly raises profound concerns. But shutting down any research and dialogue – closing the very spaces where we can interrogate and contribute science, debate risks and shape objective future decisions – would diminish agency and increase vulnerability.
Your editorial’s homogeneous characterisation of the African continent, paired with this lack of fundamental understanding of the current substantive topic, exemplifies this problem and silences the range of African perspectives that do exist. This is not benign, and it is part of a broader narrative that routinely discounts scientific experts and research networks on the continent from global discussions.
Africa has contributed least to the climate crisis and stands to lose the most. African researchers are already contributing significant knowledge on climate change. We cannot afford decisions about our common future without their engagement. A more accurate and respectful discourse starts with lifting these diverse voices rather than subsuming them.
Dr Portia Adade Williams
Senior research scientist, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana
Angela Churie Kallhauge
Executive vice-president, Impact, Environmental Defense Fund, US
