Geoengineering: Building ethics, transparency and inclusion into climate intervention research

Destructive flooding in Brazil and Kenya, ravaging wildfires in Canada and catastrophic storms in Bangladesh and the US this year alone have left communities reeling. On 22 July 2024, Earth’s global average temperature reached a record 17.16 degrees Celsius (°C) as deadly heatwaves scorched areas from Mexico to China.

This year’s extreme weather events are a troubling preamble for the upcoming COP29. At this meeting in Azerbaijan in November, world leaders will still be grappling with the results of the first ever Global Stocktake of progress towards achieving the Paris Agreement goals. This action revealed just how far behind the world is in limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.

Climate intervention, also known as geoengineering, is the deliberate large-scale intervention in Earth’s climate system to counteract global warming. Examples of current geoengineering strategies include research and deployment in solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal.

While it cannot replace greenhouse gas emissions reduction, investments in nature and building societal resilience to the implications of the crisis, interest is growing in geoengineering as a strategy for tackling global warming. But without involvement from all stakeholders, including experts from universities and grassroots organizations, we cannot fully understand what these projects will entail. We need transparency, serious study and consideration of potential financial and geopolitical risks, global health impacts and the true levels of real efficacy over long time frames.

On 22 October 2024, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) released its Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research as a guide to responsible decision-making and inclusive dialogue about geoengineering research.

It is intended for a wide audience – from researchers, scientists, governments, nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic institutions to the public and private sectors, funders, as well as civil society and Indigenous peoples.

The framework principles work on local, regional and global levels. Two leading concepts in climate intervention research – carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation modification – are defined and addressed in the framework, but the principles are broad and flexible by design so they can be applied to all emerging research.

Drawing on precedents developed for ethical research in other emerging fields with unknown consequences – including human cloning, genetic engineering and nuclear weapons – this framework proposes five guiding principles for geoengineering research, whether practiced in labs, modelled on computers or carried out in the field.

Climate intervention research should not be presented as an alternative to emissions reductions. Researchers should provide a clear, public justification of their activity. They should not only assess its direct risks but also the physical, environmental, geopolitical and social consequences of scaling their solutions.

Before starting an activity, researchers should consider whether it would shift climate impacts from one group to another. They should also look at the likely impact on groups experiencing social, economic, climate and environmental injustices, on future generations and on nature and biodiversity.

Researchers should have fair and inclusive processes to identify groups that may be impacted by the activity and include them in a discussion of the purposes and design of their research. They should secure the free, prior and informed consent of any Indigenous peoples likely to be affected by their activity.

Public and private funding of climate intervention research and experimentation should be completely transparent. Researchers should handle data responsibly, report on the nature of the science involved and document the decision-making process from start to finish. They should clearly report any negative results.

Where technologies have significant risks, funders should require research proposals to be reviewed and approved by an independent body. Activities with higher risks or at larger scales should have greater scrutiny that involves global stakeholders. Researchers should be accountable to a representative set of public institutions and stakeholders at a level that relates to the impact of the research.

These five principles are not meant to be exhaustive or final. Rather, this framework is a living document, and these points are a launching point.

AGU developed these framework principles through a two-year process that included an open public comment period and contributions from a global board of scientists, policymakers, ethicists, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and representatives of potentially impacted communities including Indigenous peoples. The consultation also included members of academia and representatives from 45 countries, 15 intergovernmental organizations and 80 nongovernmental organizations.

As geoengineering research and technologies evolve, so will this guidance. Users will revise, refine and expand on these principles as needed.

Just as AGU has done throughout the framework’s development, as the risks and opportunities of climate intervention are evaluated, all voices need and deserve to be heard. This is particularly important for technologies that have the potential to adversely impact landscapes and peoples, or those that carry significant geopolitical risks – sometimes far from the location of original intervention. In the future, more systematic, transparent and accountable governance frameworks will be needed to ensure safety and justice across geographies, and throughout time.

Amid digital-era echo chambers and artificial feedback loops, frameworks like these that support neutral, inclusive and honest approaches to research are both ambitious and courageous. There are no silver bullets; the world needs courageous and ambitious thinking to fundamentally reduce global emissions and change course on the climate crisis.