SRM is supposed to mask global warming by enhancing the earth’s albedo, for example by stratospheric aerosol injection. Thus altering the whole climate system, SRM would impact most areas of life. The risks for geopolitics, mitigation deterrence, ecosystems, justice, food security and water availability are illustrated in this graphic. Veröffentlicht in Poster.
For many years, research into SRM was only publicly funded to a limited extent. Private funding, mainly from philanthropic institutions, was the main source. More recently, growing interest from both the public and private sectors has been reported, although concrete data on expanded funding streams is limited and the overall scale and direction of this investment remains unclear This factsheet attempts to trace the evolution of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) project initiatives and their financing. It is based on the project overview table linked below. Veröffentlicht in Fact Sheet.
Solar radiation modification is highly controversial. The implementation of invasive geoengineering technologies would entail serious and largely unforeseeable ecological, and geopolitical risks. Considerable scientific disagreement exists around the extent of the risks, how they relate to increased risks of climate change, and whether uncertainties could be resolved. In expert workshops held in 2022 the scientific, technical, and geopolitical viability and desirability of SRM was discussed. This discussion paper presents a blended overview of the academic literature on solar geoengineering and the positions expressed at expert workshops, as well as personal assessments from the authors. Veröffentlicht in Climate Change | 18/2024.
SRM ist höchst umstritten. Die Anwendung invasiven Geoengineerings würde schwerwiegende und unvorhersehbare ökologische und geopolitische Risiken mit sich bringen. In der Wissenschaft bestehen Meinungsverschiedenheiten über das Ausmaß der Risiken, deren Bezug zu den Risiken des Klimawandels und darüber, wie man den Unsicherheiten begegnen sollte. In Expert*innengesprächen in 2022 wurde die wissenschaftliche, technische und geopolitische Machbarkeit und Wünschbarkeit von SRM diskutiert. Dieses Diskussionspapier gibt einen Überblick über die wissenschaftliche Literatur zum solaren Geoengineering und die bei den Gesprächen vertretenen Positionen sowie persönliche Einschätzungen der Autor*innen. Veröffentlicht in Climate Change | 52/2024.
This final report of the project “Geoengineering: Mögliche Synergien und Effekte mit den Sustainable Development Goals”, outlines major questions around geoengineering technologies – both Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) – investigating its technical and environmental components as well as anchoring it in the context of a target-driven climate and sustainability politics. Based on these components, the report provides several recommendations for policy. Veröffentlicht in Climate Change | 53/2024.
This final report of the project “Geoengineering: Mögliche Synergien und Effekte mit den Sustainable Development Goals”, outlines major questions around geoengineering technologies – both Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) – investigating its technical and environmental components as well as anchoring it in the context of a target-driven climate and sustainability politics. Based on these components, the report provides several recommendations for policy.
For many years, research into SRM was only publicly funded to a limited extent. Private funding, mainly from philanthropic institutions, was the main source. More recently, growing interest from both the public and private sectors has been reported, although concrete data on expanded funding streams is limited and the overall scale and direction of this investment remains unclear This factsheet attempts to trace the evolution of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) project initiatives and their financing. It is based on the project overview table linked below.
Solar geoengineering is gaining prominence in climate change debates as an issue worth studying; for some it is even a potential future policy option. We argue here against this increasing normalization of solar geoengineering as a speculative part of the climate policy portfolio. We contend, in particular, that solar geoengineering at planetary scale is not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system. We therefore call upon governments and the United Nations to take immediate and effective political control over the development of solar geoengineering technologies. Specifically, we advocate for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering and outline the core elements of this proposal. © 2022 The Authors
Solar radiation modification is highly controversial. The implementation of invasive geoengineering technologies would entail serious and largely unforeseeable ecological, and geopolitical risks. Considerable scientific disagreement exists around the extent of the risks, how they relate to increased risks of climate change, and whether uncertainties could be resolved. In expert workshops held in 2022 the scientific, technical, and geopolitical viability and desirability of SRM was discussed. This discussion paper presents a blended overview of the academic literature on solar geoengineering and the positions expressed at expert workshops, as well as personal assessments from the authors.
SRM ist höchst umstritten. Die Anwendung invasiven Geoengineerings würde schwerwiegende und unvorhersehbare ökologische und geopolitische Risiken mit sich bringen. In der Wissenschaft bestehen Meinungsverschiedenheiten über das Ausmaß der Risiken, deren Bezug zu den Risiken des Klimawandels und darüber, wie man den Unsicherheiten begegnen sollte. In Expert*innengesprächen in 2022 wurde die wissenschaftliche, technische und geopolitische Machbarkeit und Wünschbarkeit von SRM diskutiert. Dieses Diskussionspapier gibt einen Überblick über die wissenschaftliche Literatur zum solaren Geoengineering und die bei den Gesprächen vertretenen Positionen sowie persönliche Einschätzungen der Autor*innen.
| Origin | Count |
|---|---|
| Bund | 25 |
| Type | Count |
|---|---|
| Förderprogramm | 12 |
| Text | 5 |
| unbekannt | 8 |
| License | Count |
|---|---|
| geschlossen | 13 |
| offen | 12 |
| Language | Count |
|---|---|
| Deutsch | 16 |
| Englisch | 16 |
| Resource type | Count |
|---|---|
| Dokument | 5 |
| Keine | 18 |
| Webseite | 7 |
| Topic | Count |
|---|---|
| Boden | 21 |
| Lebewesen & Lebensräume | 21 |
| Luft | 25 |
| Mensch & Umwelt | 25 |
| Wasser | 19 |
| Weitere | 25 |