American Geophysical Union Proposes Ethics for Geoengineering

Stock photo of the sun over clouds.
Minami Sakamoto / World Meteorological Association / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
The American Geophysical Union released a framework
AGU defines geoengineering as large-scale, climate-altering projects that counter global warming, including both carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification. The unintended consequences of large-scale geoengineering remain largely unknown, so any research into the field must be grounded in sound ethical principles, the report states.
The framework is intended to inform researchers, funders, and policymakers’ understanding of the ethical dimensions of geoengineering. It builds upon previously proposed principles for geoengineering research, including the 2009 Oxford Principles
The geoengineering landscape has changed significantly since those principles were released, he added. Technologies are further along the path to deployment, with many more proposals for “outdoor” experiments that directly affect the environment and greater interest from private and philanthropic funders. Meanwhile, researchers have engaged in more transparency, open-access publishing, and deeper discussions on environmental and intergenerational justice, Visioni said.
“This research is important and needs to be done, it just needs to be done the right way,” Visioni said. “The fundamental issue with this field is public trust, and so we offered some ways in which we think public trust would be enhanced.” Eventually, he hopes the principles are used not just to block unethical research methods, but also to foster more projects by providing researchers with a better understanding of responsible practices, he added.
Accordingly, the framework outlines recommendations for holistic climate justice and inclusive public participation, including considering the physical, environmental, and social consequences of the research with social scientists and ethicists and ensuring perspectives from impacted communities, particularly Indigenous communities, are included in decision-making processes.
The framework provides a guide, not rules, Visioni said. However, Visioni noted that several proposed small-scale outdoor experiments, such as the Harvard SCoPEx program
The framework also proposes complete transparency of funding and decision-making for geoengineering research and experimentation as well as separation between funders and research decision-making.
These ideas touch on some of the concerns that environmental scientists have regarding private funding influencing the conduct of geoengineering research, said Saleem Ali, a geography and spatial sciences professor at the University of Delaware. Ali said he worries that results could be prioritized over due diligence because of the profit potential of geoengineering technologies.
“I think it’s really important for us to give science a chance,” he said. “But when you have also for-profit businesses getting into it, there’s a speculative market around these technologies ... that’s where I get worried, because it creates perverse incentives.”
Governing solar radiation modification
Federal bodies have begun to mull the prospects of solar geoengineering research. Congress gave the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funding to spin up a project to study solar radiation management
However, there is no scientific consensus on whether geoengineering technologies should be implemented. The OSTP report
In 2021, Ali co-authored an open letter
“When talking about carbon capture, storage, and utilization, that is not likely to have any kind of irreversible impact on the natural climate system,” Ali said. “Whereas when we’re talking about aerosols, there are some other kind of positive feedback loops and other factors which we need to be concerned about.”
Both Visioni, whose research centers on solar geoengineering, and Ali, who finds the viability of the technology unconvincing, said they would not want large-scale experiments without international governance systems in place. The AGU framework suggests standards for international funders and policymakers to consider, Visioni said, including requiring reviews and approvals from an independent body before research begins and establishing mechanisms for accountability to public institutions and representatives.
Countries need to create international agreements to determine liability in large-scale experimental scenarios before they happen, Visioni added. “The risk for that to lead to conflict, I think, is pretty huge,” he said.
Ali suggested that an intergovernmental body be created akin to the International Seabed Authority
Visioni said there has also been recent discussion around expanding NOAA regulations for weather modification activities, which currently only require notification after the fact. The agency is seeking comment
Expanding the types of activities that must be reported is difficult because there is no clear boundary between intentional geoengineering and everyday activities that incidentally release pollutants, such as setting off fireworks or running polluting cars, Visioni said. However, he sees value in having a publicly available record of weather modification activities with descriptions of their intended purposes.
“Having a more open access registry of activities going on, indicating why they’re happening as well, could be potentially useful, a way to attest that the attempted experiment is to gain better scientific understanding,” he said.