Friday, 16 May 2025

Thank You for Reading – and for Welcoming Us

It has been an absolute pleasure to cover this Forum and to meet so many enthusiastic members of the SRM community. We've learned so much and hope that our messages have passed along those insights effectively.

Have feedback on our conference coverage or our existing tools and offerings? Please share your thoughts – it really helps us improve our work and spread the word about this growing community.

Last note before we dive into yesterday's highlights: If you've not already done so, we encourage you to register for our SRM Researcher Database. It is publicly accessible, allowing journalists, policy advisors, and others to connect with researchers to learn more about SRM.

Seen and Heard

Highlights from today's activities. Read on below for takeaways from each session.

In Case You Missed It: Day 4 Recap

Opening Plenary

Anticipating and preparing for larger future governance challenges

Leading thinkers grappled with some of the toughest questions in SRM governance – revealing fundamental differences around how and where to craft rules of the road for this controversial and fast-evolving field.

Ted Parson said near universal calls for SRM governance break down when it comes to specifics and moderated a discussion among leading experts with vastly different views. Jeroen Oomen, Andrew Light, and Cynthia Scharf addressed questions related to building trust, balancing moratoria and research, and mitigation deterrence. 

Scharf advocated for trust-building through listening, but Oomen noted that many “trust-building” efforts are performative efforts to build constituency and legitimise desired outcomes. 

Oomen prefers non-use to moratoria, noting that there may come a time “when all of us look back wistfully to the moment of taboo” as discussions move forward rapidly. Light countered that “bad actors” are not stopped by moratoria, but legitimate research could be chilled.

Light questioned the reality of mitigation deterrence and called for quantitative assessment of the impacts of SRM research, and Scharf sees little evidence of diversion of funds from renewable energy to SRM. Oomen fundamentally disagreed, noting that “you can’t do a controlled experiment on culture”. An audience question from Luke Iseman of Make Sunsets prompted audience member Olaf Corry to note mitigation deterrence is clearly happening.

Introducing new initiatives:

Francisco Estrada Porrúa introduced four new initiatives:

Dakota Gruener introduced Reflective, an effort to accelerate data-supported research and decision-making on SRM in general and SAI in particular, including a simulator.

Cynthia Scharf of the Centre for Future Generations spoke about their work to open responsible conversations about SRM and other emerging technology in the European Union.

Matthias Honegger spoke about Co-Create, a three-year project to support responsible decision-making around SRM research.

Mark Symes discussed ARIA’s Exploring Climate Cooling programme, a UK government-funded initiative to expand SRM research. Symes explained the parameters that will govern the 21 ARIA-funded projects, which were announced last week.

Closing Plenary

Town hall: what might the future look like?

The closing plenary, hosted by Oliver Morton, brought everyone together for a thoughtful and dynamic end to the conference. It featured a lively town hall discussion with broad participation, remarks from Argentinian senator Gladys González, and closing words from Trisha Patel – the inaugural recipient of the Saleemul Huq prize for early career researchers.

The town hall discussion focused on the results of the in-conference survey, presented by Masa Sugiyama. The responses were compared against those from the 2017 Climate Engineering Conference, and main findings included about half of respondents expecting net negative emissions by 2100, broad hesitation about field experiments this decade, and an international framework as the most preferred governance action.

González said, “I believe in humanity; this cause is important for humanity, but it’s a big challenge”, and called for more research and consensus-building on SRM.

Trisha Patel closed by reflecting on the conference: “This week has been truly special.”

“It’s been a privilege to listen to you and learn from all you this week: the old guard, the new voices, the sceptics, the advocates, and the cautiously curious.”

“Thank you to the Degrees team for the warmth, the smooth logistics, and for creating a space where disagreement could be generous, where ideas could be brave, and people could feel safe enough to speak their truth.”

Morning Takeaways

Stakeholder perceptions and engagement

How can researchers effectively engage stakeholders and gauge public perception of SRM? Portia Adade Williams offered clear guidance: “SRM governance must be grounded in the voices and values of those already shaping a country’s climate future.” Shaun Fitzgerald’s research indicated a 25-week time lag between SRM media coverage and public response, with positive stories generating more interest than negative. Md. Sadique Rahman’s interviews in Bangladesh discovered support for SRM among farmers but opposition from policymakers. Cody Skahan cast suspicion on the efficacy and framing of carbon capture in Iceland, highlighting local concerns.

Impacts modelling 2

Michelle Reboita moderated the second session on impacts modelling, which featured four speakers presenting recent results: Michael Diamond found that SRM could reduce shifts in climate zones; Mou Leong Tan investigated SRM’s impacts on heatwaves in Southeast Asia; Julián A. Velasco found that SAI could have negative impacts on biodiversity across the Americas; and Shinu Wilson explored the impacts of SAI on the monsoon in India.

Non-cooperative stratospheric aerosol injection tabletop game

Could a negotiation game help people understand the international dynamics around SAI deployment decisions? Rivalries loomed large as Babatunde Abiodun and Jared Farley invited players to choose a region, and to propose a favoured scenario using Reflective’s new SAI simulator: how much would they deploy, when and where, and what would the impacts be on temperature and water availability? Would a desired result for one region be acceptable to others, or would disagreements emerge? While early days in the game’s design, the vigorous debate it prompted showed promise. “Let's not forget the key message”, said Babtunde, “a variable that is suitable for one region may not be suitable for another.” Jared Farley agreed: “Even within a singular region, it’s hard to build consensus.” 

Perspectives on non-use

The discussion, led by Jeroen Oomen, Ted Parson, and Shuchi Talati, highlighted concerns about implicit forces driving deployment and the challenge of defining research boundaries. Oomen stressed the justice concerns that led him and colleagues to conclude we need to "keep this off the table". Talati argued "ideal just systems will never be possible, but there are steps to produce less unjust things that we can take". Parson questioned assumptions underlying non-use, arguing that "whoever owns the null hypothesis wins", underscoring the stakes of framing the debate. 

Marine cloud brightening: past, present and future stages of research

During this session, moderated by Haruki Hirasawa and Ping-Ping Narenpitak, Sarah Doherty provided an introduction to MCB, including information about what can and cannot be learned from global climate models. Matthew Henry showed idealised model results. Doherty and Henry fielded questions ranging from technical aspects of MCB to policy implications. Bryony Worthington encouraged the researchers to expand their modelling to non-idealised scenarios highlighting their importance for policymakers.

Afternoon Takeaways

Cryosphere

Moderated by Shaun Fitzgerald, this session focused on geoengineering in polar regions. Matthew Henry presented findings from the first earth system model intercomparison of Arctic MCB. Xia Li then introduced and explained the potential of mixed-phase cloud thinning. Bridget Shayka outlined Ocean Visions’ Sea Ice Road Map, including their comparison of approaches to slow the loss of arctic sea ice and their current priorities. Lastly, John Moore highlighted polar instabilities and discussed the potential of underwater curtains as an intervention.

Institutions, law and governance of deployment

What mechanisms can and should policymakers leverage for SRM governance? Rachel Neef, both a speaker and session moderator, explored space law as a potential framework for governing state and private actions in a global commons. Pietro Andreoni implemented models to identify relatively safe (geographically balanced) and risky (skewed toward the global north) coalitions of state actors. Axel Michaelowa used the example of carbon management to further understanding of potential approaches to SRM governance.

Building bridges across disciplines: addressing challenges in SRM research

The key to working with people across disciplines – like natural and social sciences – is taking the time to build trust and recognise different perspectives, panellists agreed in a charmingly harmonious bridge-building discussion. “We can start by acknowledging interdisciplinarity isn’t just a technical task, but emotional and relational,” said Julia Guivant. “If you think about any successful collaboration, you will probably think about a person – or multiple people – who made it happen. You need people skills”, said Ben Kravitz. “We're all coming at this from different places”, noted Hassaan Sipra. María Inés Carabajal said: “Building bridges requires both personal and professional skills we are rarely taught in academic training... it is something we learn by doing. We must be willing to listen and learn.” 

Stratospheric aerosol injection monitoring and stratospheric observation

This panel explored the premise that international, cooperative, credible, and transparent monitoring of SRM will be a crucial capacity in the overall project of building good governance and oversight. Such monitoring will require a set of technical but also institutional capabilities to understand any form of SRM as it potentially ramps up. Balloon-borne observations can be a key tool in this effort as a feasible way to establish stratospheric aerosol baselines.

Strengthening African leadership: fostering inclusive decision-making around SRM

Paul Mulindwa from Civicus spoke about the need to include community leaders, and for SRM to "not be standalone" from other climate discussions. Franklin Opijah gave a perspective from academia, that inclusion needs to start from the outset of a research proposal and embedded in the design. Interactive roundtable discussions explored questions on how to make research socially relevant and impactful. Communicating research was cited as critical, although participants disagreed whether scientists should take their work directly to policymakers, or if they need support from intermediaries to reach different audiences. Chris Lennard added comments about the need to build human capital by supporting young researchers in the region.

Wordle Time!

Keep in Touch

For those attending, enjoy GeoMIP. We won't be covering the meeting – if you have highlights to share, we'd be happy to include them in our next monthly newsletter.

Please keep in touch. We aim to continue informing people about solar geoengineering so they can contribute to critical decisions about its research, development, and governance. And we cannot do that without you.

Having subscribed for Forum updates does not subscribe you to our regular email list.