Co-edited by Alberto Alemanno and Masahiro Sugiyama
The risk of climate overshoot – that is, of exceeding the Paris Agreement goal of limiting average global warming “well below 2°C, while pursuing efforts to stay below to 1.5°C” – is high and rising (AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023). Though substantial progress has been made, efforts to increase protection from impacts of a disrupted climate remain insufficient, and that despite the risk of worsening impacts on human health, food security, water availability, social stability, and ecosystems.
In this scenario, cutting carbon dioxide pollution to stabilize the world’s climates might no longer suffice. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that mitigation efforts alone with be sufficient to stay under the 2°C target set by the Paris Agreement (Smith et al., 2024). In other words, even drastic emission reductions over the next years will not be sufficient to keep temperature rise under desired levels.
No surprise that additional climate responses, including largely speculative ones, are gaining more attention. Thus, a growing number of voices asks whether “climate interventions” – including those referred to as geo-engineering – can be used in tandem with traditional mitigation and adaptation remedies to address the climate crisis. Climate interventions come into two main set of technologies, though even the definitions continue to be debated. First, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) – also known as negative emissions, greenhouse gas removal, or simply carbon removal – focuses on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and increasing carbon sinks at a scale sufficiently large to alter the climate. CDR is necessary, according to IPCC, and not optional. Second, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) aims at limiting the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system, for example by increasing the reflectivity of the earth’s surface or injecting aerosols into the stratosphere[1]. While SRM is not essential, according to IPCC, it may be an additional tool beyond traditional mitigation and adaptation. In addition, regional or targeted interventions (e.g., oceanic curtains to hinder warm currents from melting the bottom of the ice sheets) are increasingly discussed (Keefer, 2023).
While these approaches have the potential to offset some climate change risks, their implications and practices are not fully understood (Honegger, M., 2021; IPCC, 2023). As such, due to their inherently unpredictable nature, and other risk vs risk trade-offs, they might destabilize an already destabilized system with more and new extremes, include changes in stratospheric ozone and surface UV radiation, acid rain, and unintended climate changes such as altered temperature and precipitation patterns or excessive cooling.
Their future deployment, albeit to a different extent, remains largely contested, with CDR – not SRM – considered essential by the IPCC.
Among climate activists and several governments – including the EU27 (EU Commission, 2023) –, climate interventions remain controversial not only because they could lead to unintended consequences but essentially because they fail – by design – to address the primary cause of climate change — the burning of fossil fuels. In other words, climate-altering technologies are feared to undermine attempts to fix climate change by offering a cheaper alternative than cutting greenhouse emissions, thus disincentivising emission reductions. As a result of their inherent risk of ‘moral hazard’ or emissions reduction deterrence, where relying on future technologies delays today’s real climate action, neither science nor government – let alone the market – have any realistic plan for what is perceived as deliberately meddling with the Earth climate. Together with other forms of geoengineering, SRM has been under a hotly contested de facto moratorium through the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010 – which however the USA has not ratified) and marine geoengineering techniques, which include solar radiation modification and carbon removal approaches, are the subject of a drive for increased regulation under the London Convention, which is where the first geoengineering ban – on ocean fertilization – emerged. The United Nations Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”. It also pointed out the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk, and others living in rural areas. These same groups have been vocal in
rejecting geoengineering as a dangerous distraction and false solution that would violate their rights.
While CDR – unlike SRM – is considered an essential climate remedy by the IPCC, both technologies need better dedicated, formal international governance around their research, development, demonstration, and deployment. Yet, if the world were to exceed 1.5°, the question of which governance framework(s) and democratic processes might be needed to responsibly govern the possible deployment of climate interventions could catch by surprise not only policymakers, but also much of the academic research community. Moreover, given the relative low-cost of SRM, the risk of unilateral deployment is becoming real by the day[2].
Yet the climate-altering technologies debate – in particular, SRM - largely remains confined within a rather small community of scientists, a few policymakers, and increasingly investors, and therefore insulated from public attention (Sugiyama et al., 2024).
Hence the attempt by this EJRR Special Issue to bring together social scientists interested in how to govern future, largely speculative climate interventions, in terms of research, development, demonstration, and deployment. It focuses on the state of the art of both the science and policy surrounding climate interventions from a global perspective. It is interested in contributions focusing on the governance of climate interventions, from both disciplinary (law, political science, public policy, international relations, geography, moral philosophy, sociology) and interdisciplinary approaches (risk governance and regulation, climate change studies, critical geopolitics, EU studies). Contributions can take a contemporary or longer historical perspective, and range in focus from the global to the national scale, including the potential role of the EU, by taking either a horizontal or sectoral perspective, or combining both.
The format of the contributions sought is:
- original research paper
- of a length ranging between 4000 to 6000 words (incl. footnotes).
Interested contributors are invited to submit their short abstract (maximum 200 words) by October 1 2024 (at the latest) by completing this form. Following a preselection, authors will be asked to submit their full manuscripts – according to the EJRR’s author instructions – by December 31 2024, which will be subject to a swift yet thorough peer-review. Accepted manuscripts will be published online first (on CUP FirstView), prior to the release of the entire special issue during the second quarter 2025. An online or hybrid event, in Paris or Brussels, may be organised to present and discussed the submitted papers.
Selected bibliography
EU Commission, Scientific Advice Mechanism European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, August 3, 2023.
Edmonds, J., Luckow, P., Calvin, K. et al. Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm−2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage?. Climatic Change 118, 29–43 (2013).
Honegger, M., Michaelowa, A., & Roy, J. (2021). Potential implications of carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals. Climate Policy, 21(5), 678–698.
Honegger, M., Michaelowa, A., & Pan, J. (2021). Potential implications of solar radiation modification for achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 26(5), 21.
IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115.
Bowie Keefer, Michael Wolovick, John C Moore, Feasibility of ice sheet conservation using seabed anchored curtains, PNAS Nexus, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2023.
Smith, Steve, et al. "The state of carbon dioxide removal." (2024).
Sugiyama, M., Asayama, S., Kosugi, T. et al. Public attitude toward solar radiation modification: results of a two-scenario online survey on perception in four Asia–Pacific countries. Sustain Sci (2024).
[1] United Nations Environment Programme. "One atmosphere: An independent expert review on solar radiation modification research and deployment." (2023).
[2] Beyond the stratospheric aerosol interventions (SAI, which is the most studied option), SRM technology options also include marine cloud brightening (MCB), ground-based albedo modifications (GBAM), ocean albedo change (OAC) and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT).