Should sulfate-based solar radiation management be part of the portfolio of tools used to

meet the goals of the Paris agreement?

It is widely accepted that post-Industrial Revolution emissions of CO2, methane, N2O and other
greenhouse gases (GHGs) are resulting in anthropogenic climate change (ACC) (IPCC 2007: 137-152, Jain
et al. 2000), and that this has lead and will lead to increased risk to human and animal populations in
terms of extreme weather events, agricultural impacts and habitat loss, among other consequences
).
(IPCC 2018: 1.7 The Paris Agreement aims to reduce these risks by keeping the increase in global
average temperature “well below” 2 °C against pre-industrial levels, and to try for 1.5 °C (UNFCCC
).
Secretariat 2015a This essay will first look briefly at the mechanism and impacts of ACC before
discussing the commonly proposed responses of mitigation and adaptation. This will lead to a
consideration of why solar radiation management by stratospheric aerosol injection (SRM-SAI, hereafter
used with specific reference to sulfate aerosols) is being suggested as a possible or necessary step, the
mechanisms involved in SRM-SAI, and potential additional benefits from its implementation. The focus
will then shift to the problems that it presents, first in terms of uncertainty and risks and then social
aspects such as distributive justice, governance and moral hazard. This will make possible a tentative
conclusion regarding whether SRM-SAI should be used to help meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Observed and predicted ACC is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (GHE) resulting from
increased atmospheric concentrations of GHG, coupled with climate feedbacks. These gases allow solar
energy, in the form of shortwave radiation, to reach the earth almost unimpeded, but when the earth
emits this energy as outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) they absorb and reemit much of it back to the
).
earth’s surface (Trenberth et al. 2009, Anderson et al. 2016 This additional energy near the surface
leads directly to surface warming, but also has impacts on atmospheric, ocean circulation and
precipitation patterns (Trenberth and Stepaniak 2004), as well as the frequency and intensity of tropical
storms (Michener et al. 1997) and periods of regionally extreme temperatures (Tariku and Gan 2018,
Nkemelang et al. 2018 ).
These climatic effects in turn have serious, wide-ranging consequences for humans and animals.
Maclean and Wilson predict a cross-taxon extinction probability of 10-14 % by 2100 (2011 ).
Biodiversity loss affects the biome’s ability to provide ecosystem services such as climate regulation, soil
).
formation, provisioning and recreation (Sintayehu 2018, Pastur 2016 There are also important
questions around the existence value or rights of animals, and particular public sentiment focussed on
the conservation of iconic species, though the details of these points are beyond the scope of this essay.
Surface temperature increase and changes in precipitation will negatively impact agriculture,
particularly in areas that are already water stressed (Shahid and Behnassi, 2014) or flood prone (Younus
).
2014: 3 Sea level rise due to ice melt and thermal expansion of sea water threatens to contribute to
increased frequency of coastal flooding, leading to severe, widespread and potentially irreversible
impacts (IPCC 2018: SPM-13 ).
Proposed responses to ACC and its consequences have tended to focus on mitigation and
).
adaptation (Ramachandran and Behnassi, 2014 Mitigation has conventionally been understood as
human action that reduces emissions, or increases removal from the atmosphere, of GHGs (IPCC 2014:
SPM.4 ). The goal that has been set for mitigation is to hold warming a perceived dangerous level.
Limiting warming to 1.5 °C would reduce risks associated with all of the IPCC’s reasons for concern
(RFCs), even when the comparison is with 2 °C rather than a “business as usual” scenario (IPCC 2018
Commented [P1]: How should these be done?
).
SPM.13 However, currently planned levels of mitigation, as represented by the Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions (INDCs) adopted by the parties to the UNFCCC are not expected to achieve
this. The UNFCCC estimates that current INDCs will achieve 27 % of the necessary emissions reduction
by 2025 (range 1 – 58), falling to 22 % by 2030 (range -1 – 47) (UNFCCC Secretariat 2015b ). The Danish
).
Energy Agency puts the 2030 range at 26.5 – 48.3 % (DEA 2015 The remaining >50 % constitutes “the
emissions gap”. Based on the INDCs, it is predicted that global mean surface temperature will increase
Commented [P2]: Can I stick to this format, or does it
).
by 3.17 °C by 2100 (2.67 - 3.74°C) (Wang et al. 2018 This would constitute a significant temperature need explaining?
overshoot, and cause seriously problematic amplification of the risks discussed in the previous
paragraph. Adaptation to such risks would be significantly more challenging than to a 1.5 ° scenario,
leading some researchers to call it a “substantial, continuous and transformative process” (Stafford
Smith et al., 2011).
The difficulty of such adaptation, coupled with the current apparent failure of conventional
mitigation policies to avoid it, leads some groups to advocate for some other kind of action to reduce
global temperatures, above and beyond emissions reductions. Sulfate SRM is one such action. The goal Commented [P3]: Discuss others too? Ocean fertilisation,
is to increase the concentration of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere by direct addition of sulfur space mirrors etc.
compounds, typically SO2 but in some models SO3, H2SO4 (Smith et al. 2018), and thus increase the
stratospheric albedo due to sulfate aerosols’ strong light scattering effect. This decreases the amount of
shortwave solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface, and thus the surface temperature (Crutzen
).
2006, Plazzotta 2018 The albedo-increasing and global cooling effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosols
have been observed following large volcanic eruptions such as that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991
).
(Ramachandran et al. 2002 This method appears to offers several advantages over alternative
technologies:
1) Price. Initial investment could be as little as $13.5bn for a system capable of delivering 5
Mt yr-1 (Smith et al. 2018), representing 60 % of the amount needed to balance
anthropogenic warming in a RPC 6.0 scenario (Xia et al. 2016 ).
2) Speed of effect. Comparable effects associated with volcanic sulfate emissions have a lag
).
of ~4 months (Harries and Futyan, 2006 This is much faster than most proposed carbon
dioxide removal (CDR) schemes.
3) Scalability. The technology and resources already exist to deploy SRM-SAI at a scale that
could reverse warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2, in contrast to e.g.
space-based schemes (Angel 2006, Pearson et al. 2005 ).
There could also be two related incidental benefits to this form of artificial global cooling, in the
form of enhanced net natural carbon sequestration and increased crop yields. Although SRM-SAI would
result in less total solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, it would enhance downward diffuse
radiation in the visible range. Gu et al. (2002) suggest that diffuse radiation leads to increased
photosynthesis because it is more able to penetrate plant canopies. In conjunction with the SRM-SAI
cooling effect and high CO2 levels, this has been modelled as leading to a 3.8 ± 1.1 Gt yr-1 of carbon
being captured through global primary production (Xia et al. 2016 ). This increase to earth’s carbon sink
would decrease atmospheric levels of CO2 and thus aid with mitigation. SRM-SAI has been presented as
a temporary measure that removes the risks associated with dangerous warming due to a temperature
overshoot while mitigation and CDR bring CO2 concentrations down to safe levels (MacMartin et al.
2017); an enhanced terrestrial carbon sink makes this proposition more realistic. However, if this carbon
is rapidly released on termination of SRM-SAI, as asserted by Ito (2017), this benefit is largely lost.
The second advantage, increased crop yields, is not subject to this caveat, as the benefit of higher
agricultural productivity during the SRM-SAI period is independent of what happens afterwards.
Pongratz et al. (2012) find that maize, wheat and rice yields increase by 11 – 28 % in an SRM-SAI
scenario even without accounting for diffuse radiation, due to low temperature stress and increased
CO2 concentration. Other researchers reach different conclusions. Eliseev (2012) questions Gu et al.’s
methodology, and finds that, although SRM-SAI would decrease atmospheric CO2 concentrations over
the 20th century due to increased soil CO2, primary production would decrease, including crop yields.
Mercado et al. (2009), while agreeing with Gu et al. that past volcanic sulfate injections have led to an
enhanced land carbon sink, find that this effect declines rapidly under the parameters they set for 21st
century SRM-SAI modelling. Commented [P4]: Mini conc. About purported benefits?
These discrepant predictions of SRM-SAI’s effect on crop yield are symptomatic of the general Commented [P5]:
difficulty of modelling its impacts. There are three key potential sources of information, which will be
considered here in this order:
1) looking at the consequences of historical volcano eruptions and the associated
stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) (Budyko, 1977)
2) Computer modelling
3) Real-world testing
Regarding the first point, most eruptions do not provide useful data because the SO2 and ash they
eject does not reach the stratosphere, and thus fall or precipitate out on a timescale of weeks (Robock
2013 ). This means that any climate effects they have are impossible to distinguish from natural
variation in the climate system (Robock 2010). The 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption is frequently
discussed (Ramachandran et al. 2000, Gu et al. 2003, Harries and Futyan 2006, Boyd 2016), and some
attention is paid to the eruptions of Agung in 1963 and El Chichón in 1982 (Plazzotta 2018, Trenberth
).
and Dai 2007, Stenchikov et al. 2006 Although others are mentioned in the literature, these are the
three which best satisfy criteria of both impact and availability of data. This limited number of events
reduces the utility of the volcano/SRM-SAI comparison. Moreover, these three eruptions all occurred
soon before or after El Niño events, which makes their effects harder to distinguish (Trenberth and Dai
).
2007 A potentially more important limitation is the qualitative difference between an injection lasting
months and one lasting decades. Due to the short atmospheric lifetime of sulfate aerosols (≲ 2 years
(Robock 2013)), SRM-SAI would have to be maintained by continuous addition of sulfate compounds.
Heckendorn et al. predict that this would lead to coagulation of sulfate aerosols into larger and larger
particles (2009), reducing their albedo and atmospheric lifetime and also making them less similar to
those emitted by volcanoes.
Turning to the utility of modelling, Harries and Futyan (2006) argue that an important test of a
coupled climate model (CCM) is its ability to reproduce response times and flux anomalies for various
radiative and atmospheric factors consequent to the Pinatubo eruption. That is, if a CCM is set up with
the initial climatic and emission data of the Pinatubo event, it should accurately reproduce the actual
consequences of that event. In the same year, Stenchikov et al. (2006) analysed seven IPCC AR4 models Commented [P6]: Add stuff about GeoMIP here
of the Arctic Oscillation response to volcanic SAI and found that all of them differed importantly from
observed data, particularly over Northern Europe and Asia. Driscoll (2012) found that 13 CMIP5 models
did not accurately reflect observations, again particularly with regard to northern hemisphere Eurasia.
Despite further years of research, simulations of SRM-SAI still show large uncertainties (Plazzotta
2018 ). This is particularly the case at local and regional scales (Robock 2010), which exacerbates
difficulties regarding e.g. spatial changes in precipitation patterns (discussed below).
The third possible source of information is real-world testing. Given the undesirability of testing a
new technology on a global, long-term scale, testing would have to be limited either in space or in time.
).
One proposal is to localise injection in the Arctic (Caldeira and Wood, 2008 Although the cooling
effects would be global, others such as acid deposition and particulate matter (PM) –related respiratory
health consequences (both discussed below) might be more localised. However, Caldeira and Wood
(2008) acknowledge that their model, which is not specific to sulfate aerosol, is highly idealised, and
Robock et al., using an SO2-specific model with more realistic transport mechanisms, find that arctic
SRM-SAI would have problematic global consequences. A time-limited test is more promising. Although
some long term uncertainties can’t be checked by a short test, it is suggested that a test involving a
periodic SR-SAI forcing would generate a pattern of effects that would be distinguishable from
background variation, particularly for rapid climate feedbacks such as water vapour transport and ice
).
albedo (MacMynowski 2011 As these feedbacks are associated with a high degree of uncertainty in
century-scale models, reducing them by this kind of testing would be very useful in clarifying the scale
and probability of potential benefits and risks.
This kind of short-term testing is possible because of sulfate aerosols’ short atmospheric lifetime,
but this also means that if SRM-SAI were to stop suddenly its effects would quickly cease to be felt,
leading to warming far more rapid than what is currently being experienced as the earth’s energy
).
balance responded to the removal of the forcing (NAS 2015 This is known as the termination effect. It
is argued that this could be caused by sabotage or the outbreak of war incapacitating the injection
mechanism (McKinnon 2018), but given suitable international cooperation and foresight this should be
avoidable (Parker and Irvine 2018 ).
Other physical risks (as distinct from moral or social) include acid deposition, ozone concentration
impacts, and differentially altered regional climate. Acid rain is known to have wide-ranging negative
ecosystem impacts, including on freshwater fish populations and forest leaf health (Kravitz et al. 2009 ).
).
It is suggested that SRM-SAI could cause exacerbate these (Robock 2008 However, Kravitz et al.
(2009) evaluate this risk and find that SRM-SAI would not cause significant marginal ecosystem impacts.
Various simulations have shown that SRM-SAI would reduce stratospheric ozone concentrations
). It is suggested that this would lead to higher
(Xia et al. 2017, Pitari et al. 2014, Heckendorn et al. 2009

UV penetration with negative human health and ecosystem consequences (Xia et al. 2017). UV-B
increase would be mitigated by enhanced UV screening by aerosols, though this effect varies with
).
latitude (Pitari et al. 2014 Tropospheric ozone might also be lost (Xia et al. 2017), which could have
human health benefits. Overall, ozone effects are regionally varied and highly model-dependent (Pitari
et al. 2014).
 This regionality, due in part to the imperfect correspondence between the spatial and seasonal
variation in CO2 and SRM-SAI forcings (NAS 2015), is noticeable in the greater cooling experienced in
equatorial regions than at the poles, but is particularly pronounced for precipitation (Irvine et al. 2010).
In a simulation where SRM is used to balance 1120 ppmv atmospheric CO2, Irvine et al. find regional
precipitation anomalies to vary from -0.9% to -11.8%, though these are of lower magnitude than those
simulated under the same conditions but without SRM. They further find that, with 70-80% of warming
offset by SRM, 35% of the earth experiences highly novel conditions of temperature and precipitation,
while Robock et al. (2008) find that SRM-SAI with typically suggested injection rates would disrupt the
Asian and African monsoons on which billions of people depend for their agricultural wellbeing and link
this to observed anomalies in the period following Pinatubo. More recently Tilmes et al. (2013) find Commented [P7]: Could specify that this model is
effects ranging from a 10% precipitation increase over Asia to a 7% reduction in North American idealised sunshade, not sulfate. Distinguish between SRM-
SAI and SRM in intro? Could also refer to GeoMIP
monsoon rains. Concerns about such regional alterations are compounded by the poor performance of
Commented [P8]: Could look at Kratitz et al. 2014
).
GCMs at the regional level, especially for precipitation (Irvine et al. 2010
Commented [P9]: Also its 4xCO2
Regionality underlies objections to SRM-SAI in terms of distributive justice. For example, monsoon
rains are much more important to South Asian famers than for North American city dwellers: the
).
potential gains and losses are not the same around the world (Buck 2014 Given natural variation in
the climate system it would be difficult to determine what effects had been caused by geoengineering,
complicating questions of compensation for those it leaves worse off (Robock 2012, Szerszynski et al.
).
2013 Given the risks, whom would the public trust to manipulate the entire climate? Do private
companies run the process for profit? This risks specific groups’ interests being served over those of the
planet as a whole, but so do any nationally or internationally run schemes, and those who have lowest
historical emissions tend to be the most vulnerable to ACC and the least able to promote their own
).
interests on the global political stage (Preston 2013 Recognition of all affected groups is vital
(Hourdequin 2016), but this further complicates governance and raises the question of how populations Commented [P10]: In CJaG, Preston 2016
could give informed consent. The governance system would also have to deal with the risk of some
nations finding, decades into the SRM-SAI process, that they were unacceptably disadvantaged by it,
and attempting to disrupt the process in a way that could produce a termination effect (Robock 2012 ).
This could be unmanageable without authoritarian measures, and even if democracy were maintained
the global scale of SRM-SAI makes it incompatible with Westphalian sovereignty (Szerszynski et al.
2013 ).
In terms of resource allocation, decisions would have to be made as to how much to spend on
mitigation in terms of emissions reduction and how much on SRM-SAI. Although SRM-SAI would be
relatively cheap, those who profit most from ongoing emissions could argue that it made costly
efficiency measures unnecessary. Bunzl (2009) argues that such moral hazard is unlikely as policy- Commented [P11]: “powerful opposition by the interests
makers are aware that SRM-SAI is only a temporary measure, but this ignores the strength both of fossil that would be harmed. Such opposition
has played a major role in the paralysis that the United
fuel and industrial lobby groups and of the evident general preference for current economic growth States Congress has
over future climate security. If SRM does come at the expense of mitigation, ocean acidification will experienced in the climate policy area since 1990, and in the
continue unchecked (Angel 2006), as it is caused directly by CO2 concentrations and not primarily by policies of the
Trump administration”
temperature change (Royal Society 2005). -Climate Engineering and the Law, Gerrard
Commented [P12]: Check these refs
It is clear that there are significant risks and uncertainties currently implicit in SRM-SAI. However,
the risks of ACC, even with the current INDCs, are equally undeniable. This leads to a “risk-risk trade-off”
 ).
framework (McKinnon 2018 The challenge for policy-makers seeking to meet the goals of the Paris
Agreement is not to find a perfect solution but to find the best one available. It is worth noting that Commented [P13]: Check capitalisation
many of the novel climates and precipitation anomalies simulated under SRM-SAI conditions are
anomalous only when compared to the current climate- unmitigated climate change scenarios show
).
larger anomalies in almost all regions (get ref; check This does not mean that SRM-SAI should be
undertaken hastily: although it could form a crucial part of the portfolio of tools used to meet the Paris
Agreement goals, the risks, scientific uncertainties and challenges in terms of distributive justice and
governance are such that no action can be socially or politically acceptable until significant further
research and consensus-building is undertaken on all of those counts.