What values do SRM researchers share?
I've been reflecting on the values and motivations that underpin my work on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) thanks to some recent interviews, and I think the SRM community shares many of these.
What motivates researchers studying SRM and what values do they bring to their work? There are different kinds of researchers with different kinds of motivations working on SRM, but here I’ll focus on what I consider to be mainstream SRM scientists. These are researchers, like myself, who are working to develop an evidence base on which future decisions on SRM could be made.
I’ll be a bit presumptious and list these as commitments that “we” share. I first put out a version of this on twitter and got generally supportive responses, but take this with a pinch of salt.
Figure 1. An abstract representation of the values of SRM researchers from DALL-E.
We believe that the goal of climate policy ought to be to reduce the suffering associated with climate change
Many motivations bring people to work on climate change, but the fundamental reason that we need climate policy is that climate change will cause enormous suffering. As such, we believe that reducing that suffering should be the goal of climate policy.
We do not support the idea of using SRM as a substitute for emissions cuts, and we refuse to accept funding from fossil fuel interests1
SRM might have the potential to greatly reduce climate risks but, if it is used as a substitute for emisisons cuts, this potential could be fatally undermined and the novel risks of SRM would balloon. As such we believe that SRM is best conceived as a complement to emissions cuts, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), and adaptation. Given this stance and the clear conflict of interest that would arise, we will not accept funding from fossil fuel interests.
We do not support the commercialization of our research
Most emerging technologies are researched and initially developed by researchers in labs, and then further developed and exploited by companies. Given the global scope and impacts of large-scale SRM, we do not believe that commercialization is appropriate for SRM. Instead, we believe that SRM should be developed and exploited in the public interest by governments.
We believe scientific evaluation is a better guide than gut feeling when it comes to the risks and benefits of SRM
Most people, SRM researchers included, have an instintive negative reaction to the idea. However, SRM researchers believe that we can only develop a robust sense of the the benefits and risks of SRM proposals through rigorous scientific evaluation. We recognize that many things which seem risky on an intuitive level, e.g., vaccines, are actually life-saving.
We have a tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity
SRM researchers recognize that we don't know what the future will be. We hope SRM might help, but recognize that it has many risks and could end up making things worse. We continue to work on it despite the uncertainty and ambiguity, as we believe the world will be in a better position to develop wise policy on this issue if it is well-informed.
We understand that SRM research is controversial and so we are glad to be held to high standards2
We understand that SRM is controversial and that there are legitimate concerns about these technologies3. As such, we are willing to be held to high standards with regards to funding sources and transparency, for example.
We consider our audience as end in itself, not as a means to an end
Our goal is not to achieve policy objectives by persuading the public and policymakers to adopt particular policies. Rather, we aim to provide the evidence needed to support an informed debate on the choices that SRM presents. We aim to empower publics and policymakers rather than to persuade them.
The commitments that motivate SRM research
I believe most mainstream SRM researchers share these commitments, but I came up with this list more-or-less by myself. Let me know in the comments if I’ve missed something or if you disagree with any of the points.
FIN
Note, I don’t consider individuals and organizations which have general investments, e.g., in the stock market as a whole, which include fossil fuels as being fossil fuel interests.
This was a suggestion from Jesse Reynolds
Anshelm and Hansson (2014) noted the unusual self-reflexivity of the SRM community who “are well aware of and seriously consider all the technology's risks.”
You seem not to realize that are actually emission cuts that will cause a great deal of suffering (potentially more than climate change itself!). It's therefore clear that SRM efforts should be a substitute for emission cuts, not a complement. That's because you want to make rational choices, i.e. the ones that cause the least amount of suffering, and to let people enjoy the best of what technological progress has to offer.