Different Takes: What Does the Latest Funding Data Reveal About SRM?

Publicly funded research matters because its aim is to explore all potential avenues with no expectation of financial return: it is as open to discovering what doesn’t work as it is to discovering what does. It can take the time needed to engage communities properly and bring them along on the journey. It can prioritise building knowledge, safely and responsibly, with no agenda other than the truth.

At a time when private money is moving into this space faster than at any point since research began, it matters more than ever that public funding is building an independent evidence base, including on how solar radiation modification approaches might affect the communities most exposed to climate risk, many of them in the Global South, and holding a mirror up to the private sector. I’m proud of the role that ARIA has come to play in this field, as the foundation of the UK’s leadership in climate cooling research.

The key questions in front of us are still open: are these technologies feasible, safe, scalable and governable, or should some of them be ruled out entirely? Getting the answers that communities deserve and that people can trust is what public funding is for.

The marked acceleration in funding for SRM makes it even more urgent that we get our acts together on responsible and ethical governance. This means governance that does not increase the injustices already being suffered by the world’s most climate vulnerable people, now and into the future. SRM funding is dangerously skewed towards the Global North in ways that could lock out meaningful participation by the global majority, who have done least to create the climate mess we are in. And the interests of nonhuman nature must also be centred in urgent ethical governance efforts: we know next to nothing about the potential impacts of SRM on biodiversity. Questions about what those who are funding SRM owe to the global majority and nonhuman nature – now and into the future – are not afterthoughts. Ethical governance must deliver actionable guidance to answer these questions, fast.

There are many routes forward here – many reasons for hope – but we should be under no illusions about the real danger of this technology developing at such a pace as to outrun the possibility of ethical governance. This is especially the case given the amount of private equity pouring into this field to support for-profit SRM activities. Profit-seeking has been the enemy of justice and fairness for vulnerable people and nature throughout history. We would be wanton idiots to let profit-driven actors get their hands on the global thermostat.

SRM360’s Funding Tracker is very useful to help us understand the funding map globally for solar radiation modification, and some trends are extremely interesting.

The first and most important is the increase in level of funding over the last five years. The announcement of projects being funded by the UK government funding agency ARIA as well as the level of financial commitment to Stardust are significant developments.

I think it is worth considering why this has happened. ARIA is very clear that they think more knowledge is needed about the field of solar radiation modification, or in their language potential climate cooling approaches. And the investors behind Stardust must surely think that there has to be value in developing materials beyond sulfur dioxide for stratospheric aerosol injection. But why? I suspect it is because it is looking increasingly unlikely that mitigation alone is going to keep us below the thresholds which were announced at Paris COP21; 1.5°C is now basically beyond reach just with mitigation and even 2°C seems unlikely.

What might this mean for the future? We can’t ignore the fact that this space is going to attract attention from commercial interests. Stardust is a wake-up call. More knowledge about the field is needed now more than ever. This will hopefully prompt other governments to consider funding research too. But it could also potentially attract other commercial ventures. Overall, I predict that we will see more funding from a range of sources in the coming years.

SRM research needs more funding and more resources, and it also needs a large amount of transparency: so, the updated Funding Tracker is very welcome – it’s both a great resource and shows some positive trends. I really hope that these results are a call to action for governments to pay more attention to SRM research, and to consider supporting it through more national and international research programs.

As funding increases, I also hope that the discussion moves towards a coordinated, mission-driven plan for how all of this new research can really benefit decision-making. This is why, at Reflective, we developed our SAI Research Roadmap to chart a course from atomized research efforts to a more coordinated endeavor. The Funding Tracker and the SAI Roadmap are complementary resources that can help funders and researchers better understand and track what needs to be funded, prioritized and coordinated.

The doubling of funding in the last year and the concentration of half of the funding in the commercial space, in one company alone, is the first thing that jumps out in this new analysis. Another striking pattern: the geographical location of the recipients. The Global North received 97% of the total funds, with just $7.8 million going to 22 countries in the Global South.

Research is very much needed into these technologies. We believe research should be transparent, funded by public sources and accountable to public scrutiny. That’s why the UK government’s investment is a positive development that stands out; we hope more governments follow suit.

For this work to have legitimacy and trust, it should be completely transparent. It must consider the societal, ecological, and economic impacts of the countries it will impact and clearly articulate the winners and losers. It must be inclusive of communities in climate-vulnerable regions – many of which do not have in-country research funding, according to this report – who should have a say in the research as well as the governance.

Environmental Defense Fund is investing in analog research – looking at what data from volcanoes and wildfire smoke can tell us about local and regional impacts of this potential technology, but many regions in the world simply lack the data to do these kinds of detailed analyses.

Given that this technology – if deployed – has the potential to impact regions across the world, we should not leave it to be shaped by a small number of individuals or countries. Research should be clearly communicated and available to all. People have the right to access information and participate in conversations about matters that could have meaningful impacts on their futures.