Simulation led by Leeds researcher reveals obstacles to governance of emerging climate intervention technologies

A new report explores whether climate cooling approaches could be governable by creating non-ideal simulations of high-level talks.

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) technologies are a group of technologies that aim to increase the amount of sunlight reflected into space to counter warming due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and are sometimes referred to as solar geoengineering.

It has been suggested that these technologies, if deployed in a globally-coordinated way, could mitigate some of the effects of global warming.

Geopolitical and sociopolitical factors

Assistant Professor in International Relations Dr Danielle Young of the School of Politics and International Studies has undertaken research to gain a better understanding of how geopolitical and sociopolitical factors influence the research, development, and governance of these controversial technologies.

After presenting at the Berlin Climate and Security Conference on the panel 'Governing the sun? Global Security and the Governance of Solar Radiation Modification', Dr Danielle Young published the comprehensive report from the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) funded project 'Exploring Geopolitical Tipping Points and Climate Cooling Strategies', along with Dr Laura Considine and colleagues from Queen Mary University of London and Imperial College London.

Non-ideal crisis simulations

The project team mobilized an international network of practitioners, researchers and civil society actors to consider and negotiate a potential governance framework for SRM technologies through a series of crisis simulations over the course of a year.

The simulations were designed to investigate decision-making in non-ideal scenarios and shed light on the global geopolitical challenges that may be posed by SRM.

Although many participants had specific expertise in SRM itself, others were recruited for their expertise in foreign policy, security, and international governance and diplomacy. Each participant was given a role profile with different aims and red lines based on their actor’s stated policies and historical background and asked to embody their expertise in these roles. The roles included climate NGOs and nonprofits, national governments, technology companies and indigenous groups.

Despite most participants being motivated to pass a formal agreement on the governance of SRM, they were unable to reach an agreement with either a 2/3rds majority vote or consensus vote.

Key findings of the report

Rather than climate concerns, issues of strategic competition and state sovereignty drove the simulations.
Actors were unable to establish a shared foundation of knowledge and understanding, particularly around the purpose of SRM research and development.
Multiple types of uncertainty hampered progress towards agreement.
SRM governance debates both reflected and showed the potential to exacerbate global inequalities.
Participants and proceedings in the simulations were vulnerable to misinformation and misperceptions.

Conclusions

The report concluded that:

Any discussion about SRM needs to recognise the nature and scale of governance issues.
Countries may have sticking points around SRM that do not relate directly to SRM or climate change.
For any agreement to be multilateral, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing are crucial. Monitoring, detection and attribution capabilities are essential for any governance agreement, but building trust in these capacities will be equally important.
Context is key. The success of governance proposals depends not only on its content, but also on who proposes an idea, who supports or opposes it, and how it affects other non-SRM issues.

The research complements the broader SAFEGEOGOV project by providing higher resolution data on and analysis of competitive or non-cooperative mindsets and approaches that may inform the behaviour of decision-makers and key actors.