Share
SRM in the context of fractured, uncertain times
 ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

View a web copy of this email

Thursday, 15 May 2025

Degrees Global Forum 2025 - Day 3 Highlights

Important Updates


If you've not done so already, please complete the Degrees Global Forum SRM Survey.


Today's Agenda

Seen and Heard

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

Join the Conversation

Want to stay in the loop during the day's sessions – or share something we should be sure not to miss? Connect with us on LinkedIn, Bluesky, and X using the conference hashtag #DGF2025.

Supporting Materials from SRM360

The video of our live discussion from Tuesday's morning plenary is now available. You can also listen in podcast format – subscribe to the Climate Reflections podcast on your preferred platform to catch the latest episodes.


During yesterday's morning plenary, David Keith identified air pollution as a risk of SRM that researchers should more frequently discuss. For more on the topic, check out our podcast episode on SAI and Air Pollution.

In Case You Missed It: Day 3 Recap

Opening Plenary


Fitting SRM into the wider landscape


Holly Buck led a session with Rose Mutiso and David Keith focused on how SRM fits into broader discussions of climate change solutions. The session began with a survey, engaging the audience to explore their own thoughts about SRM in the context of CDR, adaptation, and mitigation. Mutiso noted that while SRM and these other approaches are “siblings in a way”, they are not the same and each requires special consideration.



Introducing new initiatives:

Ping-Ping Narenpitak introduced three SRM newcomers. 


Viktor Jaakkola of Operaatio Arktis, explained their work advocating to preserve the polar ice caps and prevent Earth system tipping points.


Mark Turner and Pete Irvine explained the work of SRM360 (that’s us!), a non-profit knowledge broker dedicated to informing people about solar geoengineering, and introduced their new solar geoengineering funding tracker.


And Shuchi Talati discussed the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG), a global effort to build the capacity of climate-vulnerable communities and Gloubal South nations to participate in solar geoengineering discussions and decision-making.



Morning Takeaways


Impacts modelling: food and agriculture

The impacts of SRM on agriculture are difficult to pin down, as Lili Xia and three speakers showed in their session presenting results on this tricky issue. Nina Grant presented preliminary results showing that SAI might be able to improve cocoa yields compared to climate change without it, studying a site in Ghana. Temitope Samuel Egbebiyi considered crops important to West Africa and found that SAI could improve suitability for cereals but not cassava. Lastly, Emmanuel Zeus Gapan presented varied results on the impact of SRM on flood damage to rice crops depending on seasons and crop maturity.


Ethics

Florencia Luna moderated a session that stressed the need for ethical guidance for the SRM discussion. Amanda Sie provided a theoretical framework for ethics in SRM research. María Inés Carabajal noted that “no governance is governance”, emphasising the impacts of unregulated commercial deployment on perceptions of SRM in Latin America and the Caribbean. Billy Williams ended the session highlighting the development of AGU’s Ethical Framework for Climate Intervention Research. 


SRM research and governance: bright lines or slippery slopes?

Tackling the idea that research doesn’t necessarily lead to deployment, panellists explored perceptions around engaging with science. Rachel Neef discussed the role of setting boundaries in moving forward the governance of SRM, while Trisha Patel highlighted the need for transparency. Benjamin Redmond Roche added examples of geoengineering research projects that have successfully gained buy-in from local communities, including indigenous populations. Participants noted the challenges involved in identifying stakeholders and intentions in the field of SRM.


SRM in a fractured media landscape

How can researchers best communicate about SRM in a fast-shifting information landscape – where traditional outlets struggle to compete with new media sources, and where mis- or disinformation is widespread? Holly Buck explored the African perspective with Sisanda Nkoala, Meli Ncube, Rose Mutiso, and David LePage. While traditional media is still important, newsrooms are stretched and subject to many pressures. Meanwhile tiktok, whatsapp, or local language radio stations are increasingly  the first port of call. Sisanda Nkoala stressed that the use of indigenous languages was critical. “I don’t think science is complete if it’s not communicated to the public”, she said. Rose Mutiso suggested the cautious cultivation of trust would be particularly important for the SRM community. Meli Ncube said: “If it could be done with the Bible, it could be done with science.”


What might the first decade of stratospheric aerosol injection deployment look like?

Focusing on the next 10 years, Daniele Visioni discussed useful, small-scale SAI field experiments. Wake Smith and Ali Duffey presented findings that suggest that high-latitude, low-altitude SAI could be feasible with existing jets and produce a larger, more global cooling than some expected. However, Lauren Wheeler stressed that logistical factors like the availability of airports and other infrastructure could constrain deployment.

Afternoon Takeaways



(Un)governability and security risks

People outside the world of SRM science view the field through very different frames, which need to be considered. Olaf Corry said security experts saw SRM not as a potential global public good, but as a source of geopolitical tension and instability. “We always assume [governance] will be driven by climate logics, but there are other logics that will kick in. When or if this moves from the lab to the skies, we won’t have very much power over it.” Jeroen Oomen thought SRM could be at a moment similar to the 2018 IPCC report, when carbon removal became seen as a necessary component to limiting warming to 1.5°C, normalising it and creating a sense of inevitability. Hin-Yan Liu warned: “We think we regulate technologies, but ultimately they seem to regulate us.”


Marine cloud brightening research 

Moderated by Romaric Odoulami, this session covered recent research on marine cloud brightening (MCB). Edmund Reardon brought an engineering perspective and discussed his progress towards developing a suitable sprayer for MCB trials. Annelot Broerze investigated the impacts of excess water spraying and the radiative response to MCB. Erin Emme then explored various scenarios, including single hemisphere MCB and the impact of seasonality. Lastly, Tianle Yuan – who wasn’t present but pre-recorded a video – evaluated MCB using observations of ship tracks as a natural analogue.


Exploring the technical, social, and policy dimensions of SRM experiments

Benjamin Redmond Roche led a series of deep discussions of SRM field experiments and the governance issues they raise. Focusing on five diverse case studies, the discussions highlighted the important distinctions of scale, geography, jurisdiction, and intervention type in the governance of SRM field experiments.


Presenting the WCRP Lighthouse Activity for research on climate intervention

Daniele Visioni summarised the motivations and plans for the new World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Lighthouse Activity on climate intervention and then moderated a discussion highlighting the role this programme can play in bringing SRM into mainstream climate science and policy discussions. Participants included Inés Camilloni, Simone Tilmes, Chris Lennard, and Frank Keutsch.


Environmentalism and equitable SRM research

Nana Ama Browne Klutse and Lisa Dilling shared their thoughts with Viktor Jaakkola on modelling potential regional impacts and uncertainties, and how to communicate beyond the SRM community. It was followed by a discussion between Ernest Ofori and Ellen Haaslahti, led by Taylen Reddy, on the need for – and lessons learnt in – developing youth movements in SRM research, drawing upon their own experiences with GAYO and Operaatio Arktis, respectively.


Wordle Time!

Play Today's SRM Wordle

Thank you for reading. We'll be back tomorrow with highlights from the final day of the Degrees Global Forum.


Previous Degrees Daily Editions

We hope you're finding these updates useful and that you'll keep in touch when the Forum comes to a close. Subscribe to our regular updates to stay in the loop on the SRM news you need to know. And let us know what you think – both of our conference coverage and our SRM tools and content.

Subscribe
Share Your Feedback



Email Marketing by ActiveCampaign