Podcast
News Roundup: Hottest Year, SRM Under Trump, International SRM Discussions, and More
We’re joined by SRM scientists and governance experts: Blaž Gasparini, Claudia Wieners, and Shuchi Talati to discuss the latest SRM news.

2024 was the hottest year on record. Could that change how policymakers think about SRM? How might the new administration in the US approach SRM? Do experts think countries will effectively develop international SRM regulations? We discuss a recent paper examining the topic, and find that the outlook is not optimistic. We also discuss another recent study which found that although SAI would cause some deaths, implementing SAI could still save hundreds of thousands of lives for every 1 degree C of cooling, thanks to its reduction in climate change-caused heat-related deaths. Finally, we explore a new book chapter on Cirrus cloud thinning, and answer a question from our listeners.
To discuss the latest SRM news, Climate Reflections Host Pete Irvine is joined by Blaž Gasparini, a Senior Scientist at the University of Vienna in Austria, and an expert in Cirrus clouds, Claudia Wieners, an Assistant Professor in Climate Physics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands studying the impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) on Atlantic circulation, and Shuchi Talati, a climate technology governance expert and founder and Executive Director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering.
Transcript
Dr. Pete Irvine: : [00:00:00] Welcome to the January 2025 News Roundup of the Climate Reflections podcast! Each month we round up the news related to sunlight reflection methods, or SRM, from the previous month. I’m your host, Dr. Pete Irvine. Today I’m joined by several leading SRM experts to discuss the latest news in SRM. Blaž Gasparini, Claudia Wieners, and Shuchi Talati. Can you each give a brief introduction?
Blaž Gasparini: hello, I’m Blaž Gasparini. I’m a senior scientist at the University of Vienna in Austria, and I’m an expert on high clouds, cirrus clouds.
Claudia Wieners: My name is Claudia Wieners. I’m an assistant professor in climate physics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and I’m mainly interested in the physical impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection, uh, currently mostly at what it does to the Atlantic circulation.
Shuchi Talati: I’m Shuchi Talati. I’m the founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, or DSG for short. I [00:01:00] largely work on governance and justice issues surrounding solar geoengineering and thinking about how we can empower climate vulnerable communities to be leaders in the geoengineering debate.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Great! Well, thanks all for joining. First, let’s discuss some of the climate and SRM related headlines from the past month. It was announced on January 10th that 2024 was the hottest year on record, officially. The World Meteorological Organization declared that the average global temperature in 2024 was about 1.55 Celsius above the pre-industrial average. Hotter than even 2023, which shattered the previous record. They also concluded that the last 10 years were the hottest decade on record. So what do you think the significance of 2024 being the first calendar year to officially exceed 1.5 Celsius warming means? What does that mean for us?
Claudia Wieners: I think we should be careful not to over interpret this. So first, [00:02:00] because it was one outlier here, so it does not mean that we have, in the climatological sense, crossed 1.5. And also, 1.5 is not a magic line, it is a number. We don’t know whether 1.4 is safe and 1.6 is disaster. Rather, yeah, dangerous tipping points can happen at 1.5, or 1.4, or 1.6 or 1.7. It’s not a deadline, it’s more like every tenth of a degree counts to keep the climate safer. And there is one more danger, which is in the context of SRM, to stare too much on temperatures because 1.5 under strong mitigation and no SRM is a very different 1.5 from a 1.5 as high as CO2. And a lot of SRM.
Shuchi Talati: I totally agree with Claudia, and I think it’s incredibly important to just recognize that this is what we expected. This is not a line that we’re crossing that we’re surprised about. Climate change is worsening, people are suffering [00:03:00] from more impacts, and we’re continuing to see that.
Blaž Gasparini: I think it’s still a big mystery why these last two years were so much warmer than all the years before. So I think if something that started a lot of new research, looking at some of the processes of climate that are also relevant for SRM, like um, for example, the response of clouds to aerosols, which may have contributed a little bit to that warming.
Dr. Pete Irvine: And that’s from the, the cleanup of shipping and the cleanup of air over China has led to this reduction in sulfate emissions, which produces aerosol particles and which is thought to have had a large cooling effect that has now been potentially taken away.
Claudia Wieners: Though, as far as I know, Carbon Brief made a study where they tried to quantify this effect of the cleaner shipping and I found that while it may have a significant contribution to the current warming, it does not explain all of it. So there still remains a mystery.
But there’s maybe one political thing also. With this 1.5, there may be a temptation to say, we [00:04:00] now need to strive to implement SRM as quickly as possible. And to some extent, there is, of course, a justification. We’re approaching tipping points, potentially, and SRM may help to prevent those, but we should also not be tempted into believing that we can techno fix our way out of this crisis. So first, SRM is much less safe than mitigation is, climate wise. But even if you include solar cells into the broader thing of technology, yeah, I think there’s more than technology, whether that’s solar geoengineering or solar cells.
I think if we want to have a sustainable future with everybody being free of poverty, but within the planetary boundaries, we also need a major overhaul of the economic system. Technology is incredibly helpful, we need to see which technologies are helpful and which are dangerous, but we also need societal change and a good start would be to tax the [00:05:00] rich to finance the green transition.
Dr. Pete Irvine: So that segues nicely into the next item. By the time this episode airs, President Trump will be back in office, probably is unlikely to put in tax rises for the rich. During his last administration, Trump removed the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and unwound several Obama era environmental policies. With Trump back in the office, what can we expect from the U.S. administration on climate change and SRM? Dr. Shuchi here.
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. I think that the real challenge is that we don’t know. I think this administration is completely unpredictable, irrational, and unstable. And so trying to make predictions about what they may or may not do is really challenging. And I think that’s very true when it comes to climate change and SRM. I think we’re seeing really opposing forces that are likely going to play huge roles in the Trump administration when it comes to ideas like SRM. So we have a lot of technofix centric ideologies through people like [00:06:00] Elon Musk or Peter Thiel or Marc Andreessen, who have either talked about SRM in positive ways or could. And on the other side, we also have people like RFK Jr., who is a huge chemtrails conspiracy theorist and is very anti SRM. And so, how these things will ultimately interact and what stances the administration may or may not take is really hard to predict.
I think what we can say with certainty is that the U.S. is not going to be a leader in climate change governance or action over the next four years. I think we’re starting to see a lot of increasing interest from places like the E.U. We’re starting to see institutions like UNEP and different U.N. bodies start to be more engaged. There might be a resolution on the table at the 7th U.N. Environment Assembly at the end of 2025 and so what different countries decide to do and how, I think, is going to be even more important now that the U.S. is going to be [00:07:00] less of a player in those conversations.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Yeah, I should note that you, you gathered some of these thoughts together in a piece that you wrote on your website at DSG, and we’ll include a link to that in our show notes.
Blaž Gasparini: I just wanted to comment that it’s not like only in the U.S. that sort of the policy is turning against the urgency of climate action, but also very much in Europe and elsewhere. And that seems to be quite a disconnect from what we were talking in the beginning about the breaching the 1.5 degree at least for a year. So that’s interesting. It seems, I don’t know, the public is maybe a little bit oversaturated with this type of negative climate news, or just that topic of climate has been pushed a little bit behind in the last years, a little bit overall.
I don’t know what will that bring us. Shuchi seemed to have still put out a perspective of the other players, like the EU, maybe starting to become a little bit more engaging in these discussions. But yeah, [00:08:00] I’m wondering where does this lead us? And I’m also wondering whether this means that we, the researcher to do some work on SRM, whether, whether we should do something different on communication, whether we have to be more careful in how we communicate about it, or I don’t know, I’m just wondering.
Claudia Wieners: On this communication bit, I do see a risk that if, for example, some major climate disaster happens and is acknowledged to have happened. Or, just if some billionaire thinks SRM is cool, that there could be a flood of information on SRM that portrays it in a biased way. Maybe as being too safe and too good to be true, or of course maybe also as being the complete hell, like chemtrails and so on.
I do think, as scientists, we should not overestimate our influence and not overestimate the rationality of decision makers or the public, or even our own maybe sometimes. But I worry that the tendency to [00:09:00] be careful about, yeah, not stepping out and discussing SRM means that the space remains open for more crazy communicators. So to give an example, I recently applied for a session in a conference that’s on a not SRM topic but related topic. And they didn’t want to have such a session on SRM because this could give the wrong impressions or promote SRM too much. And to some extent, I understand this fear, right, because promoting SRM in times where mitigation isn’t doing well is dangerous.
But leaving the space open for more crazy people who don’t have, yeah, scruples, I think is also dangerous. So maybe we should be proactive and explain what SRM can do and what it cannot do, that it has, it’s a powerful tool, but also a limited tool and just one piece of the puzzle.
Shuchi Talati: I want to echo what Claudia said because I think that’s very [00:10:00] true, not just in an academic context, but true for policymakers.
And I think we’re seeing that in the U.S. We’re not seeing a lot of efforts to communicate with policymakers or to educate in ways that are scientifically based. And so I think, and I think that’s a huge reason we’re seeing a massive proliferation of legislation in Republican states led by conspiracy theorists, members of those state houses, introducing bills to ban SRM based on chemtrails conspiracy theory.
And I think this kind of gets to a point that I think is a huge part of why I decided to found DSG is that, not talking about SRM is not going to make it go away. And if we’re not talk, trying to talk about SRM in ways that are unbiased and balanced. It’s not going to be nothing that fills a space, it’s not a vacuum. It’s going to be filled by misinformation or disinformation.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Now, let’s shift to some new academic articles on SRM that have come out since our last News Roundup. Two [00:11:00] papers have come out recently addressing international governance of SRM, or a lack thereof. Uh, Todd Cherry and colleagues published a paper in mid-December on expert attitudes on the prospects of developing effective international governance, and generally found a lack of optimism. Though, they found some experts in the global south were more supportive of SRM than those in the north.
And another new piece, a science policy forum by Duncan McLaren and Olaf Corry, reflected on their experiences at the UN Environment Assembly, where negotiators failed to adopt any decision on SRM. Uh, they argue that diverging geopolitical interests, particularly the US and Saudi Arabia with their fossil fuel interests on one side, and the developing world and more progressive climate interests on the other, was behind the failure to reach any agreement. And they also reject the idea that the resistance from some African nations to the proposal was due to a lack of understanding and effective lobbying by some activists.
Shuchi, you were at this meeting. How does your reading of the UNEA meeting compare to theirs?
Shuchi Talati: I mean, I probably agree with their [00:12:00] characterization. I think there were different blocks of negotiators functioning in different ways. I think we saw a lot of different types of actors on the ground engaging with delegations, some more effective than others at lobbying.
You know, one area that I diverged with them on is, this notion that there weren’t knowledge gaps for a lot of developing countries, because that’s not what I heard from my own conversations. And I think the challenge in characterizing some of these negotiations is that it’s really subjective. People have different conversations with different negotiators at different times throughout the week of UNEA, and perspectives change.
And I think one of the things that is incredibly challenging for me to think about for the next UNEA, is how well we understand the political context of different countries as actors in the global north, right? Even in the U.S., we’re seeing massive political volatility. So the context of the U.S. in the next year is going to massively [00:13:00] shift and I would be incredibly insulted if anybody thought the Trump administration represented my views on climate change. And I think that’s likely true for a lot of different countries that are represented by their governments in these types of climate negotiations. So I think it’s also dangerous to characterize any particular country’s views of these negotiations as that country’s perspective on SRM. And so I just want to note that type of kind of limited characterization that these papers can offer and also the fact that this was almost a year ago now and so the context of a lot of these decisions might change.
Dr. Pete Irvine: So I guess the negotiators at these meetings, I imagine for countries like the UK, parts of Europe, America, they have quite an integrated approach and an established position. But for smaller nations, I mean, I presume the government didn’t necessarily have a position on SRM before the negotiation started and were the negotiators [00:14:00] connecting? I don’t know. How integrated is the view of smaller nations on issues such as this?
Shuchi Talati: I think it’s really hard to characterize it because it’s extremely diverse and very heterogeneous. I heard from a lot of different countries saying that they wanted more capacity building opportunities, that they themselves had knowledge gaps that they were trying to fill really quickly, but that they weren’t given the opportunity to do that before this deliberation happened, which is a huge problem, right?
If they’re not able to develop their perspectives in ways that are thoughtful and considered, it’s going to be really challenging to engage in a deliberation where a lot of people have had more time to develop those perspectives. You know, what’s also interesting is that there were two African countries on the resolution when it was submitted by Switzerland and then ultimately during the deliberation the African bloc kind of functioned as a group and those two countries withdrew from the resolution. And I think that kind of gets to my earlier point of how quickly these perspectives can shift and [00:15:00] how negotiations and regional politics will also influence how people engage in these deliberations.
I just think it’s really important to make sure that we don’t characterize opinions in ways that are overly specific, and to say the African bloc was anti SRM, or to say that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia were, like, pro SRM, I just don’t think either of those characterizations are true, and I think it’s a disservice to, you know, all of those countries to make those assumptions.
Dr. Pete Irvine: The resolution was for an assessment to be made, is that right?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, that’s correct. So it was for an expert group to be put together to make an assessment and what was actually really interesting to me during the deliberations, and I actually think this is also kind of the conclusion that Duncan and Olaf came to in their paper, is that I think there was a chance for consensus around this idea for more information, [00:16:00] that we could build a repository for all different types of information from physical science to social science to legal, humanities, ethics, research, but that was not put on a table until near the end of the negotiation. That was a lost opportunity. And broadly, I do want to say, I, I tend to agree with their ultimate conclusion of the paper that this idea of non-deployment, I think, is an area that that has a lot of broad consensus and could be a jumping off point in the future. And I think in a way that is supportive of research, that’s not this kind of, not the non-use agreement, that’s the academic publication, but non deployment as this kind of line that we can then start to build off of as a broader climate community.
Dr. Pete Irvine: And a non-deployment position, would be that, is that equivalent to a moratorium, so sort of a temporary ban on deployment activities?
Shuchi Talati: That’s how I read it, and I’m pretty sure that’s how they characterize it in the paper [00:17:00] as well, and that’s also what we saw as a potential recommendation from the EU reports that came out in December.
I think the challenge now is that we don’t have a lot of nuance yet in this community about moratoria and what that means, and is there a possibility of coming to an agreement about what could or should be allowed and in what ways in the context of non-deployment? And I think that’s going to be a huge challenge moving forward.
Dr. Pete Irvine: So I guess, taking a step back, do you all share the concerns expressed by, I guess, I don’t think you’re going to know that, but also in that other paper, about the prospects for the international community developing effective governance for SRM?
Claudia Wieners: Yes. If you look at how mitigation governance has gone so far, that’s not exactly causing optimism, at least for me. I mean, there has been very little willpower so far to do the right thing, which is putting people and planet before prophets, making the rich countries and rich people shoulder their fair share of [00:18:00] responsibility, support poorer nations during the green transition, and to make it worse as a rising tide of ruthless politicians who profit from ordinary people’s uncertainties by fanning resentment rather than working on solutions.
So this is a worrying situation and I think it would be naive to assume that policymakers who mishandle mitigation will magnificently coordinate on SRM. But it’s also naive to assume that policymakers who don’t handle mitigation well, would handle well a climate emergency that we could potentially get if we let things go and not have SRM.
So, I have a problem sometimes with people who say SRM is ungovernable in the current political climate, so we should not engage with it because the climate emergency is maybe even more ungovernable than SRM. Yes, I’m worried, but it’s hard to draw a [00:19:00] conclusion from this on what to do with SRM. And I think a notion like a non-deployment agreement that allows low risk research, like no big outdoor experiments, but maybe theoretical research, small scale outdoor experimentation, that’s the boundary where to look at such a thing could be beneficial, and I think it’s relatively widely supported. Whether then all actors will stick to that if a climate disaster hits, or some billionaire goes rogue, is another question.
Dr. Pete Irvine: So, moving on to some other papers, there were a couple of papers focused on the side effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection that came out since the last News Roundup. In a modelling study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Harding et al., found that while the side effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or SAI, on air pollution in the ozone layer would lead to some increase in deaths, they found that the reduction in [00:20:00] deaths from heat related mortality would outweigh that by 13 to 1.What are your, what are your reactions to this, this study, what’s its significance?
Claudia Wieners: So I think it’s in a way it’s a great effort and very interesting that people are really trying to quantify this very down to earth things, like death from heat waves and death from pollution. It should be noted, however, that quantifying this thing is notoriously difficult, because you need to make assumptions about how many people will die from heatwaves depending on wealth. It happens that I have worked on exactly the data which they used for the heatwave myself, and it’s a great pioneering effort, but there are also some methodological issues in these functions themselves. Of course, a factor of 1 to 13 is big enough that even if they’re wrong by a factor 2, it’s still a strong result.
But we should also note that many of the really big freakish concerns about SRM or about the lack of SRM will probably never be quantifiable. How big would be the [00:21:00] impact of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation tipping, so that’s the Gulf Stream system that brings warm water to Europe, if that would tip, maybe parts of Europe would become uninhabitable.
How do we quantify the societal impact of that triggering migration waves or whatever? Also, how should we predict mitigation deterrence? Because if we use SRM but then we don’t mitigate, maybe the climate will be worse off than if we would have not engaged with SRM from the beginning. So it’s good to quantify the things that we can quantify or roughly quantify, like this heatwave death and pollution death, but we should be humble and accept that there will be major things that we will not be able to quantify and whatever we decide will be decision making under deep uncertainty.
Shuchi Talati: No, I fully agree. And I think it’s, I agree that sometimes these types of studies can be helpful, but when we’re looking at very specific variables and excluding others, I think it sometimes created a false [00:22:00] picture for people who might not have kind of the scientific background and understanding of nuance that kind of goes into some of these outputs.
And so, characterizing SRM in ways that are really positive without talking about some of the other potential types of impacts that are not included in this paper is risky, just from a communications and I think just general context of SRM standpoint. And so I struggle with that, right, because I do think this is important information that we need to know that, and I think areas where SRM is potentially useful, like in the context of extreme heat, but in other contexts where it may not be, and we’re not quantifying those types of interactions, it’s challenging.
And it’s not a fault of the researcher, right? I think that they’re trying to do a very specific narrow thing. But when we talk about outcomes and communications of those outcomes, I think that [00:23:00] makes it a lot more challenging.
Dr. Pete Irvine: I guess my reaction to this partly is, you know, I agree that there’s deep uncertainties here, both on the scenario side, what happened to a mitigation, and then also the technical uncertainties, which they do stress in the paper, I should note.
I guess my reading was, those two things were the most significant side effects, the non-climate side effects of SAI. And they’re small relative to the effects of SAI on one of the factors that affect health. Obviously, climate affects health in other ways, vector borne disease, disasters, floods, etc. But this, I guess my reading of this is that the climate effects of SAI and the sociopolitical effects are a much bigger deal than the side effects on air pollution and ozone.
Shuchi Talati: I generally agree, but I think there are also other types of impacts that people are concerned about that could have much larger impacts.
Something that comes up a lot is the potential impact on the Indian monsoon, right? And I think there’s a lot of debate on either direction, [00:24:00] for example, but that could have massive ramifications for food security for millions of people. I hesitate to say those are the two most important side effects, those are the two most direct side effects that I think we talk about, but I think there are also a lot of other potential impacts that could go in either direction of the spectrum but could potentially have a lot of negative impact as well.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Yeah, no, I was highlighting them as non climate side effects. I think where we need to really worry is exactly where you’re saying is what does, what would SAI do to hydrology, and then there are things to be really potentially quite concerned about. Moving on, there was another paper addressing another side effect of SAI, which is that it would make the sky a little whiter.
Um, this study by Lemon et al, um, found that in most parts of the world, uh, background air pollution would make it very difficult to notice any change in the appearance of the sky for a, a moderate scale deployment of SAI. Um, what are your thoughts on [00:25:00] this, Blaž?
Blaž Gasparini: Yeah, I’m really excited to see this paper out.
I feel like that’s really what we need. We need more of this sort of visualizing what the impact of SRM will be. Okay, maybe what they show is kind of a strong SRM scenario, what they show in their pictures but this is something that I was always trying to find and show in my talks. And it’s just great to have this visualization of how the sky looks like for a low aerosol condition where you can see a little bit more of impact. And you can really see this milkier sky or reddish sky in the evening on one side, and then on the other side, actually in regions where the air is sort of already quite polluted, a lot of aerosols up there, you don’t really get much of an impact at all.
That to me is really something that I’ll probably be using a lot in general talks about SRM and before that, I was really striving to find something useful. I did find something which [00:26:00] was a sky covered by dust from Sahara, which is something we get in the Alpine region a couple of times a year but now finally something more connected to SRM to show.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Yeah, and we’ll include a link to this paper which does include a nice graphic showing this and they’ve also developed a little interactive web tool where you can dial up SRM and dial up air pollution to sort of see how it differs under different conditions. Great. Well, Blaž, there are several new preprints and a book chapter addressing cirrus cloud thinning, your area of specialty. What is cirrus cloud thinning, briefly, for our audience, and what do these new studies add to our understanding?
Blaž Gasparini: Yeah, so, normally when we think about clouds, you would imagine that they cool the climate, and that’s true, most of clouds cool the climate. But some of them, particularly those very high cirrus clouds, they act as blankets or similarly to greenhouse gases, on the climate. So they warm, on average, the climate and because of that, there are some ideas like okay, [00:27:00] why don’t we try to make these blankets a little bit thinner.
And that’s the idea behind cirrus thinning, since there’s a few mechanisms, or at least two relevant mechanisms, to form those clouds. And one is thought to produce a thicker blanket-like cirrus, and the other one is thought to produce a thinner blanket, like cirrus, and we think that if you would inject some isonucleating particles, some aerosols, which would start a freezing, or isonucleation process, you may be able to shift from the more warming, thicker blankets to the thinner blankets.
Uncertainty is huge, so we’re not really sure if we can get any significant cooling worldwide from this method. And actually reflecting this uncertainty, we have these two studies, which broadly give different opinions on whether or not cirrus cloud thinning would yield to some cooling effect on climate.
So the first study, the Jeggle et al, the is a data driven study based on [00:28:00] satellite observations or retrievals and some sort of wind fields and temperatures, which are semi observed and semi computed by model. It’s reanalysis data for those that know what that is, and they actually get to the conclusion that at least in the region that they’re looking at, more dust, so more of this isonucleating particles, more of this aerosols would probably rather lead to thicker blanket. So just the opposite impact of what we want to see. Some sort of overseas clouds, there was already before an impact from modeling studies that we noticed that when you have too many of this isoclating particles in the atmosphere, too many of aerosols in the atmosphere, you may get to just the wrong impact. Instead of getting the thick blanket become thinner, you make the thick blanket even thicker. That’s the broad conclusion in Jeggle et al., satellite data driven approach.
Then we have another [00:29:00] satellite-based study, Mitchell and Garnier, 2024 also, and they look at different satellite observations, but reach a different conclusion, saying that look, actually there’s about 20 to 40 percent of homogeneous, so thicker blanket like cirrus, which we could potentially be able to modify, and that could actually yield potentially some quite significant cooling effect. Of course, they don’t go further, they don’t go to quantify that, but it’s just sort of in the broad message where these two studies disagree quite a bit.
I’m actually wondering if they’re scientifically on the same page, they might even be. If we put those two groups of researchers together, maybe, I think they wouldn’t disagree that much, but it’s interesting how they draw different broad conclusions out of these two studies. I think that’s why we need some more research on the topic.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Great. To wrap [00:30:00] things up, I want to shift over and ask you a question from our audience. So we have a comment that came in from Hans. Hans pointed out that without cooling insurance prices could become increasingly unaffordable for many people. He was specifically referring to hurricanes, but this could also be applied to fire risks and other risks.
Um, what are the chances the insurance industry or the reinsurance industry, which insures insurers, uh, what’s the chance that they could start pushing policymakers to look more closely at SRM as an option?
Shuchi Talati: I think we’re already starting to see some of those conversations starting, um, for them being curious about this space.
We’ve had some conversations as, including with reinsurers, just in terms of sharing information about the SRM space, whether or not they’ll decide to be advocates for it or push against it or be neutral, I think very much remains to be seen and could be different among different types of insurers, but I think it’s an important group that could have a lot of influence, right?
And I think we’re seeing [00:31:00] that play out right now in a number of different climate disasters and what an important role insurance plays for people who are suffering from a lot of these impacts and may not have the means to recover without them. So I think it’s just a really important space to keep an eye on moving forward.
And it’s really important, I think, for scientists and communicators to engage with them to educate and to provide extremely scientifically accurate information that is contextualized.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Well, uh, Shuschi, Blaž, Claudia, uh, thanks for joining me and thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Shuchi Talati: Thank you.
Claudia Wieners: Thank you very much.
Dr. Pete Irvine: Thanks for joining us for our monthly news roundup. Tune in for more episodes of Climate Reflections. If you like this episode, please rate and review us wherever you got this podcast. The Climate Reflections podcast is a production of SRM 360, a non profit knowledge hub, supporting an informed evidence based discussion of sunlight reflection methods.
To learn more about SRM or to ask us a question, visit srm360. org, where you can also find [00:32:00] a transcript of this episode with links to the articles we discussed.
Ask us a question!
Citation
Reuse this work freely
The content produced by SRM360 is open access under the Creative Commons BY license. You are free to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided that SRM360 and the authors are credited.
The sources used by SRM360 are subject to the licence terms of the original third party. We will always indicate the original sources in our content, so please review the licence of any third-party sources before use and redistribution.