UK Parliament to Debate a Petition on Making Geoengineering Illegal

This petition shows that there is at least some public opposition to solar geoengineering (noting the petitioner conflates greenhouse gas removal with geoengineering). At the time of writing, there are about 160,000 signatures, which equates to about 0.2% of the UK population. But how significant is public opposition to solar radiation modification (SRM)?

Recent research shows that about 10% of the UK public slightly to strongly oppose SRM as a societal response to climate tipping points. But a great many people still do not know what SRM is, let alone whether or not they support or oppose it. Public petitions tend to bring out the most strongly felt opinions among the public, so they are by no means representative of the public at large. But what they can do is kick-start much needed societal conversations about contentious topics like SRM. Petitions are an important part of our democratic apparatus, but ultimately only represent one part of a wider system of participation. What is needed now is broader and deeper societal engagement, with access to information, deliberation and dialogue, and crucially institutional responsiveness.

Whether governments decide to use SRM is so important and so consequential for all of us – and for future generations – that vigorous public debate is essential. In particular, it’s critical that those communities suffering first and worst from climate change be part of these discussions. The tragic reality is that the world is still heating up, despite amazing advances in clean energy. We absolutely need to cut emissions immediately, and invest in adaptation. However, what, in addition to these essential measures, is our plan for alleviating the widespread suffering that’s coming our way in the next decades?

Let’s be clear: the prospect of spraying the skies to reflect the sun’s energy back into space is scary. It means we need to proceed cautiously, and not shut down a discussion that needs to happen, as uncomfortable as that is. SRM is not a solution nor a substitute for addressing the cause of climate change. The public deserves to know what emerging climate technologies might do, and what the risks and uncertainties are. Shutting down responsible, transparent research is not a good way to evaluate our options. Ignorance is not a good strategy for making wise decisions.

Public engagement is not a box to be checked but the crucible in which deliberation takes place in democratic societies. Given potential adverse impacts of SRM deployment – for the natural environment and human society – it is critical that any decisions taken be as broad and inclusive as possible. For a choice about something so fundamental to our life on this planet, this must not be left to experts, policymakers, or any narrow segment of society. Public petitions help to center specific perspectives and bring salience to important topics. But they are no substitute for giving a hearing to the totality of voices and views that exist. Here we can draw on emerging evidence from representative surveys and deliberative workshops on public perceptions of SRM.

First and foremost, public awareness and understanding of SRM remains very low. And yet, there is an apparent open-minded stance towards exploration and testing. Instead of broad opposition, publics around the world seem to be neutral or even mildly supportive of SRM. In fact, those in the global South tend to express higher support – meaningful given that they bear more of the impacts from climate change, now and into the future. Of course, publics also pointed to significant risks and raised crucial questions about SRM, about issues of power and justice and how to regulate such technologies. Therefore, this is the moment to prioritize conversation and deliberation that is broad, deep, and inclusive – not to shut it down prematurely.