The public is invited to attend a combined Naval Address on Climate, Energy, & Environment entitled “Geoengineering the Earth’s Climate: an introduction to the scientific and governance issues” with Dr. Kate Ricke. This event will be on Zoom on October 24 at 1230.

Topic: Combined Naval Address on Energy, Climate and Environment

Time: Oct 24, 2023 12:30 Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://usnwc.zoom.us/j/87122178281

Meeting ID: 871 2217 8281

Passcode: 610034

What is geoengineering? It’s a broad term for a variety of climate interventions on the earth system. We are talking about solar radiation modification (SRM)--how we can modify the amount of solar radiation coming into the earth’s atmosphere.

What does science and policy say about it? For a long time, most scientists and policy-makers have advised great caution about “hacking the planet.” This is for both scientific and geopolitical/societal reasons (not knowing the second, third, fourth-order effects to the system or neighbors). There are also large ethical questions raised with manipulating the earth’s atmosphere.

Changing perspectives…. In 2021, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published “Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance” advising changes. In June 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) adopted many of these recommendations and published the “Congressionally Mandated Research Plan and an Initial Research Governance Framework Related to Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).”

The change: The motivation for understanding the full range of climate interventions has gotten stronger as the planet continues to warm and mitigation/decarbonization strategies may need to be augmented—hence the need for research.

The message of the OSTP report is one of comparing risks:

“The potential risks and benefits to human health and well-being associated with scenarios involving the use of SRM need to be considered relative to the risks and benefits associated with plausible trajectories of ongoing climate change not involving SRM. This “risk vs. risk” framing, along with cultural, moral, and ethical considerations, would contribute to the necessary context in which policymakers can consider the potential suitability of SRM as a component of climate policy.”