Here we grasp the tool in this side of our box with the most promise to exert a material cooling impact on the planet in the foreseeable future. It also however comes with the greatest likelihood of problematical unintended consequences. Volcanoes provide a helpful analog for how SAI might operate and demonstrate that aerosols suspended in the atmosphere can and do immediately and substantially cool the earth. The mechanics of recreating such a volcano effect in a deliberate fashion are explained and situated in both space and time. It is also noted that relative to any other climate intervention or solution, SAI would be stunningly cheap, giving rise to the prospect of the “free driver” hypothesis. In addition to exerting force upon the climate variable (temperature), it may well interfere with ones we do not, such as rainfall. The problematical dynamics of stopping such a program (“termination shock”) are explored, as are difficulties that would arise in seeking to attribute observed climate impacts in an engineered climate to their causes. SAI is presented as an enigma to be explored rather than a remedy to be implemented.

This chapter debates the consistency of the deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) with international law. SRM might help to counter global warming at relatively low cost, but it could also have substantial negative environmental impacts. Jesse Reynolds, reviewing all the relevant international treaties, as well as customary international law, argues that solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law. There is even some evidence, he argues, that solar geoengineering may be required by international law. Kerryn Brent reaches the exact opposite conclusion. She argues that solar geoengineering at scale would violate the no-harm rule and is prohibited by the UNFCCC and other treaties.

This chapter debates the consistency of the deployment of Solar Radiation Management (SRM) with international law. SRM might help to counter global warming at relatively low cost, but it could also have substantial negative environmental impacts. Jesse Reynolds, reviewing all the relevant international treaties, as well as customary international law, argues that solar geoengineering could be consistent with international law. There is even some evidence, he argues, that solar geoengineering may be required by international law. Kerryn Brent reaches the exact opposite conclusion. She argues that solar geoengineering at scale would violate the no-harm rule and is prohibited by the UNFCCC and other treaties.

Greenhouse gas emissions abatement, negative emissions technologies, and adaptation are not, and most likely will not, be enough to prevent dangerous climate change and its deleterious impacts on humans, other species, and ecosystems. Some scientists and others are increasingly considering and researching solar geoengineering, which would reflect or block some of the sun's incoming solar radiation, as a potential complementary response. This introductory chapter offers an initial explanation of climate change and solar geoengineering, including its leading proposed techniques of stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning. Solar geoengineering should be taken seriously, as its governance is both important and challenging. Among the major challenges is that solar geoengineering presents a high-stakes risk-risk tradeoff under conditions of great uncertainty. Another is that although earlier governance can be more effective, little is then known of such an emerging technology’s salient characteristics. The chapter outlines the topics covered by the remainder of the book and makes the author’s prior assumptions explicit.

Solar geoengineering is being considered and researched as a potential response to anthropogenic climate change. After exploring the causes and risks of climate change and other responses to it, this chapter describes solar geoengineering’s history and proposed methods, including stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus cloud thinning. The current evidence regarding their potential capabilities, costs, and technical feasibility is presented. Evidence from models and natural analogs indicates that a moderate deployment of solar geoengineering would globally reduce climate change. It also appears to be technically feasible, rapid in its effects, inexpensive in its direct deployment costs, and reversible. Among solar geoengineering’s physical risks are imperfect compensation of climatic changes and consequent residual climatic anomalies, delayed recovery of stratospheric ozone, and irresolvable uncertainty. Social challenges include decision-making regarding deployment, problematic uni- or minilateral implementation, strained international relations, displacement of emissions abatement, biased future decision-making, and disagreement regarding ethics.