Toward Dangerous US Unilateralism on Solar Geoengineering

ABSTRACT

As social scientists, we are concerned about the impact of the National Academies Report on solar geoengineering. It has already set into motion a major, federally coordinated national research program in the United States to develop this dangerous technology. We emphasize that scientists and researchers are not the ones who will be making decisions on deployment, so research and development should not proceed without integrating broader international perspectives. If the US government does not pause to establish effective international governance and public participation before investing more in solar geoengineering, then the NAS report will have – regardless of the intentions of the committee – opened the door for the US to unilaterally shape and advance the global development of solar geoengineering.

KEYWORDS:

• Solar geoengineering
• geoengineering
• climate justice
• United States
• global governance
• unilateralism

We appreciate Lin and Hourdequin’s response to our article on The Dangers of Mainstreaming Solar Geoengineering: A Critique of the National Academies Report. We recognize that the National Academies’ (NAS) report mentions international cooperation and public engagement, and suggests a transdisciplinary and socially responsive approach to research (NASEM, 2021). Yet the ultimate, actionable conclusion of the report – that the United States establish a national solar geoengineering research program – is not aligned with these ideas. Moreover, as we discussed in Stephens et al. (2021a), the report fails to integrate public participation or global governance in its own processes and its recommendations include detailed funding research priorities that have not been vetted through international governance or participatory processes. Ironically, the report was created in the absence of the very forms of governance it recommends: international coordination, inclusive participation, and a precautionary approach to maintain the strict separation between research and deployment.

The establishment of a major, federally coordinated national research program is precisely what the NAS report set into motion. On page 153, the report recommends explicitly that the US Global Change Research Program manage a national research program with support from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. NAS reports are intended to guide federal policy, and since the publication of this report the U.S. House Appropriations Committee has indeed directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to establish a U.S. solar geoengineering research program with the US Global Change Research Program. This is exactly the outcome we expressed concern about in our 2021 article – the establishment of a US research program without international coordination and governance structures and without public participation. In these respects the NAS report functions as a significant unilateral and disruptive intervention in the global governance of solar geoengineering – yet paradoxically those involved do not seem to see this.

Because scientists and researchers are not the ones who will be making decisions on deployment, such a research program should not proceed without effective international, participatory governance for both research and development. We share with Lin and Hourdequin a deep concern that climate action is inadequate, and that the impacts and causes of the climate crisis are exacerbating inequities and disparities around the world. Yet from our perspective, the NAS report recommendations fail to acknowledge how appeals for solar geoengineering focus too narrowly on manipulating the climate, rather than transforming the political economy that is perpetuating the climate crisis and exacerbating injustices. The report also fails to consider that the motivations of countries – including the US – for developing solar geoengineering may have more to do with geopolitics, power, and the maintenance of that unjust political economy, than they have with managing the climate crisis (Stephens et al. 2021b). If the US government does not pause to establish effective international cooperation and public participation, then the NAS report will have – regardless of the intentions of the committee – opened the door for the US to unilaterally shape and advance the development of solar geoengineering.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.