Stuart Jordan (Solidarity 703) argues that we should support only computer-simulation research into Solar Radiation Management (i.e. technologies which seek to mitigate global warming by reflecting away more of the energy from the sun, notably stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB)). There is no rush. Small-scale experiments can “bleed into” risky large-scale SRM.
We discussed this last November. Then, we concluded instead for “a massive programme of cross-disciplinary and critical research of SRM and other such climate interventions, funded by taxing the rich”. We stressed the risks; stressed public funding, scrutiny, and distrust of governments; but did not exclude small-scale “real-life” experiments.
Or even, in ultra-emergency, larger-scale action. “Now or in the future... the impacts and risks of SRM — even including ‘unknown unknowns’ — [could] be a lesser evil compared to not implementing them”.
Both SAI and MCB would be highly visible, so I don’t see how small-scale experiments could quietly “bleed into” large-scale action. For now governments show little appetite even for small-scale experiments.
I don’t see how Stuart can be so sure in ruling out climate ultra-emergency until after worldwide workers’ governments have been stabilised and have had ample time to do small-scale experiments to tweak the technologies or rule them out.
Workers’ governments will improve the quality of mass scientific education and democratic scrutiny of technologies. But over time. With other dangerous technologies, e.g. solar panels, we can and do fight for democratic scrutiny even under capitalism.
Better to target our November conclusions and the supporting article, which allowed for “more” SRM. If anyone is guilty of pessimism about socialism, etc., here, then all of us who took part in the November discussion are.
Martin Thomas, London