American Geophysical Union Proposes Ethics for Geoengineering

The American Geophysical Union released a framework last month proposing ethical principles for geoengineering research that aim to ensure public trust in the field.

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 and the 2010 Asilomar Principles, said Daniele Visioni, one of the framework’s co-authors.

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 and the University of Washington CAARE project, have been blocked by local opposition despite meeting the current legal requirements for environmental reviews and the like. He argued that the framework provides a path for projects to avoid such obstacles by proactively engaging communities earlier in the process. Visioni pointed to geoengineering projects run by the University of the Arctic and the Australian government that featured such engagement and avoided local pushback as a result.

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 in 2020. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a congressionally mandated report last year that discusses the topic and the National Science Foundation is hosting a series of workshops through late November that invite social scientists, ethicists, natural and life scientists, and engineers to discuss shaping the governance framework for geoengineering technologies.

However, there is no scientific consensus on whether geoengineering technologies should be implemented. The OSTP report emphasizes that discussions on solar radiation modification research should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its implementation.

In 2021, Ali co-authored an open letter calling for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering, which some scientists believe should be handled differently from carbon dioxide removal, as it involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere rather than removing emissions.

“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 for deep sea mining, with requirements such as an impact assessment process. The authority organizes and controls deep seabed activities and is responsible for protecting the marine environment from the effects of such activities.

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 until Nov. 19 on what reporting requirements to establish for solar geoengineering experiments and their intended effects and whether it should pursue a broader regulatory strategy specifically for solar geoengineering research and experiments.

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.