Should solar geoengineering be used to address climate change? An ethics bowl-inspired approach

Sikina Jinnah and Juan Moreno-Cruz

[PDF]

PROJECT SUMMARY

This chapter presents a classroom project, which engages students in an ethics bowl-inspired approach to grappling with equity and justice implications of using climate engineering technologies to address climate change. Solar geoengineering seeks to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth to cool the planet. The project asks if research on solar geoengineering should be allowed to continue and if so under what conditions. As in a traditional debate, an ethics bowl requires you to research, explain, and defend a position. Unlike a traditional debate, which pits teams against one another, in an ethics bowl teams need not disagree but are evaluated on the clarity and quality of their arguments. It encourages deep, analytical thinking and rewards collaboration across teams to collectively develop the strongest arguments to the questions being posed. It requires students to engage in complex ethical discussions and demonstrate respect for diverse perspectives. The suggested interdisciplinary reading materials serve as a case packet to introduce students to the basic science, rationale, and range of ethical arguments often deployed both in favor of and against use of these technologies to address climate change. The model presented here could be adapted to any complex ethical issue with diverging viewpoints and conflicting supportive data.

To facilitate the development of critical thinking skills, all students should prepare by seeking to systematically understand the host of arguments both in favor of and against the pursuit of solar geoengineering research. This necessarily prepares students to research and defend positions that they may not necessarily agree with during the ethics bowl itself. We often tell our students that developing their ability to defend arguments that they disagree with, sometimes vehemently so, will make them stronger at defending their own positions. Allowing in-class preparatory time for students to work in groups to collectively develop these positions is important as students often find coordinating time outside class difficult for group projects. See the section on “Options for Extension,” below, for more detail on how to do this.

The project can be used as a one-week module or spread out with additional readings and lecture materials. The debate can be completed in one 90-minute class session. It can also be stretched out over two class periods with additional teams and an in-class debriefing exercise. Depending on how the project fits into your course, you can curate the suggested readings and multimedia content to reflect the amount of time you allocate to this subject and/or emphasize those elements that are most relevant to your course. Taken together, the suggested readings provide students with a foundation in the basic science of solar geoengineering, the landscape of policy proposals for governing these technologies, and the primary ethical arguments associated with solar geoengineering proposals. In several cases we have paired articles wherein one directly critiques the arguments lodged by the other. These paired pieces are listed below and marked with asterisks (*).

This model is best suited to upper-division undergraduate courses on global climate change politics, environmental justice, environmental policy or politics, technology and society, climate change science and politics, or even a general course on international relations or global governance. The amount of assigned preparatory materials will vary depending on the centrality of climate change to the course.

This chapter is organized as follows. First, we summarize the project’s core learning objectives. These may vary depending on the particular focus of your course. In the central model presented here, the emphasis is on climate change policy and justice. Second, we provide a list of suggested preparatory materials for students. These readings include both high-level overview materials, geared toward a broad audience, as well as more academic literature that highlights key debates in ongoing discussions of solar geoengineering. To accommodate various types of courses, we provide far more material than we expect would be used in a single undergraduate course. We divide the list by category so you can select readings that fit the specific goals of your course and/or areas where your students may need additional support. We also selected readings with a long shelf life, which outline foundational arguments that will be as relevant in five years as they are today. Because the science surrounding solar geoengineering is progressing quite slowly (due largely to funding constraints and public resistance), even these readings will likely be relevant for quite some time. In the event that solar geoengineering research unexpectedly jumps forward, we suggest looking for the most recent work of the authors listed below, as the research community on this topic is lamentably small (and largely focused in the US and Europe). Third, we provide some background information for instructors on solar geoengineering. This section explains what solar geoengineering is, overviews the key technologies, and summarizes the potential risks and benefits associated with this set of emerg- ing technologies. This background section provides instructors who are not experts in solar geoengineering with sufficient information to run the ethics bowl in their classrooms. Fourth, we discuss challenges we have faced in running this assignment and suggestions for addressing these challenges as well as options for stretching the project out over two or more class periods. We conclude with some reflections on equity in the classroom.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

  • Describe the basic mechanism of solar geoengineering technologies and how they might operate to address climate change impacts;
  • Map the potential risks, benefits and burdens of pursuing solar geoengineering technologies as a climate change response;
  • Identify and analyze competing justice implications of solar geoengineering across populations;
  • Critically analyze the desirability of pursuing solar geoengineering responses from various positions;
  • Develop critical thinking skills by using the practice of iterative and collaborative engagement and discussion; and
  • Develop the ability to understand diverse perspectives on controversial and complex issues through deep and engaged discussion.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READINGS

General Overview

  • * Keith, D. (2013). A Case for Climate Engineering. MIT Press.
  • * Hulme, M. (2014). Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case AgainstClimate Engineering. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Reynolds, J. L. (2019). The Governance of Solar Geoengineering:Managing Climate Change in the Anthropocene. Cambridge University Press.

Science

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2021). Reflecting sunlight: Recommendations for solar geoengineering research and research governance.
  • Ocean Studies Board & National Research Council (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press.
  • Neslen, A. (2017). US scientists launch world’s biggest solar geoengineering study. The Guardian, March 24.
  • Rogelj, J., Den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., et al. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534(7609), 631–639.
  • Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., & Muri, H. (2016). An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 815–833.
  • MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., & Keith, D. W. (2018). Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119), 20160454.
  • IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.
  • IPCC (2022). Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. [Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.
  • Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) (2022). Briefing Note on Solar Radiation Modification as addressed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change. Available at: https://www.c2g2.net/wp -content/uploads/20220329-C2G-Brief-AR6_WG3_SRM_EN.pdf.
  • Visioni, D., Slessarev, E., MacMartin, D. G., Mahowald, N. M., Goodale, C. L., & Xia, L. (2020). What goes up must come down: impacts of deposition in a sulfate geoengineering scenario. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 094063.
  • Parker, A., & Irvine, P. J. (2018). The risk of termination shock from solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 6(3), 456–467.

Policy

  • Chhetri, N., Chong, D., Conca, K., Falk, R., Gillespie, A., Gupta, A., et al. (2018). Governing solar radiation management. American University; School of International Service; Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment; Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance.
  • Jinnah, S., & Nicholson, S. (2019). The hidden politics of climate engineering. Nature Geoscience, 12(11), 876–879.
  • Reynolds, J. L. (2021). Is solar geoengineering ungovernable? A critical assessment of governance challenges identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(2), e690.
  • McKinnon, C. (2020). The Panglossian politics of the geoclique. In S. M. Gardiner, C. McKinnon, & A. Fragnière (eds.), The Ethics of “Geoengineering” the Global Climate (pp. 173–188). Routledge.
  • Parker, A., & Irvine, P. J. (2018). The risk of termination shock from solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future, 6(3), 456–467.
  • * Biermann, F., Oomen, J., Gupta, A., Ali, S. H., Conca, K., Hajer, M. A., et al. (2022). Solar geoengineering: the case for an international non-use agreement. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 13(3), e754.
  • * Jinnah S., Buck H. J., Moreno-Cruz J., Nicholson S., & Parson, E. A. (forthcoming). Toward a better debate on solar geoengineering.
  • McLaren, D., & Corry, O. (2021). The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 12(3), e707.

Economics

  • Cherry, T. L., Kroll, S., McEvoy, D. M., Campoverde, D., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2022). Climate cooperation in the shadow of solar geoengineering: an experimental investigation of the moral hazard conjecture. Environmental Politics, 1–9.
  • Heutel, G., Moreno-Cruz, J., & Ricke, K. (2016). Climate engineering economics. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 8, 99–118.
  • Goeschl, T., Heyen, D., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2013). The intergenerational transfer of solar radiation management capabilities and atmospheric carbon stocks. Environmental and Resource Economics, 56(1), 85–104.

Equity and Justice

  • Biermann, F., & Möller, I. (2019). Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(2), 151–167.
  • Callies, D. E. (2019). The slippery slope argument against geoengineering research. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36(4), 675–687.
  • Frumhoff, P. C., & Stephens, J. C. (2018). Towards legitimacy of the solar geoengineering research enterprise. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119), 20160459.
  • Harding, A. R., Ricke, K., Heyen, D., MacMartin, D. G., & Moreno-Cruz,J. (2020). Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–9.
  • Hourdequin, M. (2020). Climate change, climate engineering, and the “global poor”: what does justice require? In S. M. Gardiner, C. McKinnon, & A. Fragnière (eds.), The Ethics of “Geoengineering” the Global Climate (pp. 41–59). Routledge.
  • Horton, J., & Keith, D. (2016). Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In C. J. Preston (ed.), Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 79–92). Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Svoboda, T., Irvine, P. J., Callies, D., & Sugiyama, M. (2018). The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to reduce climate injustice. Journal of Global Ethics, 14(3), 353–368.
  • McKinnon, C. (2019). Sleepwalking into lock-in? Avoiding wrongs to future people in the governance of solar radiation management research. Environmental Politics, 28(3), 441–459.
  • * Stephens, J. C., & Surprise, K. (2020). The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research. Global Sustainability, 3.
  • * Táíwò, O. O., & Talati, S. (2022). Who are the engineers? Solar geoengineering research and justice. Global Environmental Politics, 22(1), 12–18.
  • Whyte, K. P. (2020). Indigeneity in geoengineering discourses: some considerations. In S. M. Gardiner, C. McKinnon, & A. Fragnière (eds.), TheEthics of “Geoengineering” the Global Climate (pp. 60–78). Routledge.

ONLINE MULTIMEDIA BACKGROUND MATERIALS

Links to all online multimedia resources below can be found on the companion website at:

  • The Economist (2019, July 22). Could solar geoengineering counter global warming? [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/OGdz5gYqm-o.
    •  A short introduction to the science and politics of solar geoengineering.
  • Carnegie Climate Governance initiative. C2G2. (2022, July 13). Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.c2g2.net/.
    • C2G2 is an initiative led by the former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Climate Change, Janos Pasztor, which seeks to catalyze the creation of effective governance for climate-altering technologies, in particular for solar radiation modification and large-scale carbon dioxide removal.
  • Climate Overshoot Commission (n.d.). Retrieved August 1, 2022, fromhttps://www.overshootcommission.org/.
  • Keith, D., & Hulme, M. [Oxford Martin School] (2013, December 2).The Case for and Against Climate Engineering [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/OXaxMRyRIlU.
    • Complementing the two books by these authors listed above, this video is a debate between Keith and Hulme on the topic of climate engineering as a potential part of the global climate response portfolio.
  • SCoPEx. Keutsch Group at Harvard (n.d.). Retrieved August 1, 2022, from https://www.keutschgroup.com/scopex.
      • SCoPEx is the high-profile proposed outdoor experiment being led by a research group at Harvard University. This is the official SCoPEx website, which summarizes the project team, scientific goals, and governance initiatives surrounding the project.
  • SCoPEx, Harvard University [WebsEdge Science] (2020, December 2). New Frontiers in Climate Change Research [Video]. YouTube. https:// youtu.be/w_qkmavwE54.
        • Produced by the SCoPEx research team, this short video makes the argument that solar geoengineering research should proceed.
  • Seeker (2019, October 13). Why the World’s First Solar Geoengineering Test Is So Controversial [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ReBPqguolu8. •
    • Featuring several leading voices in the solar geoengineering space, this short video explains some of the key political and ethical issues surrounding the SCoPEx experiment.
  • The National Academies (2022, July 6). Climate Intervention Reports Release Event Webcast [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/120094498.
    • This report was the first and most comprehensive assessment of the techniques that fall under the category of solar geoengineering.
  • The National Academies (2021, March 30). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance – Report Release from the National Academies on Vimeo [Video]. Vimeo. https://player.vimeo.com/video/530878274.
    • This is a follow-up to the “Climate Intervention” report that recommended a research program and that governance of that research program was studied by NASEM.
  • Pickett, B. (2022, March 16). Should scientists be allowed to do outdoor research on solar radiation modification? [Video]. C2G2. https://www .c2g2.net/ken-caldeira-c2gtalk/.
    • This is a good, yet idiosyncratic interview, about the role of science and the limit to research by one of the leading climate change scientists in the world.
  • Woodrow Wilson Center (2021, May 13). Setting an Agenda for Solar Geoengineering Research and Governance [Video]. YouTube. https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0tWWjUAaw.
    • This webinar features some authors of the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) panel and other researchers summarizing and discussing the 2021 NAS report on solar geoengineering research and research governance (see report citation above).

ISSUE BACKGROUND: WHAT IS CLIMATE ENGINEERING?

Climate engineering, also referred to as geoengineering, is often defined as the “deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al., 2009: 1). These technologies are typically grouped into two broad categories: solar geoengineering and carbon removal strategies. These two categories describe two vastly different sets of technologies, which present vastly different ethical and political issues, and should therefore be discussed and governed as distinct issue areas (Jinnah et al., 2021). Carbon removal strategies, also referred to as negative emissions technologies, seek to permanently take carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere and store it underground or under the ocean floor. They include proposed engineered strategies (e.g., direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and so-called “nature-based” approaches to solutions (e.g., reforestation, increasing carbon sequestration capacity in soils, and biochar). The political and ethical issues associated with all of these forms of geoengineering are critical, with some of the most controversial related to costs of staple crop production (e.g., maize) as land uses shift to accommodate large-scale reforestation, and safety implications and permanency of storing large amounts of CO2 underground. The classroom project we present in this chapter focuses exclusively on debating the ethics and politics surrounding solar geoengineering strategies, and this background section thus focuses exclusively on this subcategory of the larger geoengineering field.

Solar geoengineering refers to a set of technologies that aims to reduce the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere by scattering incoming sunlight and/or increasing the Earth’s albedo (reflectivity). Increasing planetary albedo at any altitude from ground level to points above the atmosphere can generate a cooling effect. Most of these ideas are imagined; they do not yet exist or do not exist at a scale that could produce a climate response. They are therefore often referred to as emerging technologies and include strategies

such as making white rooftops; genetically engineering more reflective plant leaves; increasing the reflectivity of the marine cloud layer; thinning cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape the Earth’s atmosphere; and, at the most extreme end of science fiction, installing mirrors in outer space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The most-discussed proposal, and the focus of this ethics bowl discussion, is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). SAI would use high-altitude aircraft, tethered balloons, or some other delivery system to inject aerosols or aerosol precursors, like sulfur, into the stratosphere. The reflective particles would reflect and scatter incoming sunlight, decreasing the amount of solar radiation that ultimately is captured by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Importantly, unlike traditional climate mitigation techniques, SAI would not decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, except via spurring some limited potential increases in plant growth. This is one of the reasons why SAI is so controversial. Some describe it as a “band-aid” solution because it doesn’t address the underlying drivers of climate change (i.e., CO2 emissions), but just masks the temperature-related impacts of climate change for a short time. Further, suppression or avoidance of climate change-related impacts could only be maintained if the technology were to be used indefinitely. This phenomenon, referred to as “technological lock-in,” creates a host of ethical concerns related to, for example, the ethics of committing future generations to indefinite use of these technologies (e.g., Goeschl et al., 2013). Other key ethical issues associated with SAI surround the uncertainty associated with any sudden halt to its use without corresponding measures to aggressively decrease CO2 emissions (e.g., think of a terrorist attack or natural disaster that takes out a key deployment base). Although there is great uncertainty about exactly what might happen in this scenario, the impact of this increased solar radiation could be sudden and dramatic. This is known as the “termination shock.” For these reasons and others, even proponents of SAI argue that it should only be used as a complement to aggressive mitigation measures and only for a limited time frame to buy us some time in avoiding the most dangerous of climate impacts.

Despite these caveats, there remains widespread resistance among environmental advocacy organizations and some academics to any future use and/ or any continued research of these technologies. One central argument is that research presents a “slippery slope” to deployment. Once we start down this path, it will be very difficult to change course. Another is related to the moral hazard solar geoengineering research presents. The idea here is that once we start dedicating time and resources to research in this space, we divert that time and those resources away from the core of the problem: that we are putting way too much CO2 into the atmosphere to sustain life on this planet. Still others argue that solar geoengineering represents a form of “planet tinkering” that is inherently unethical; or that the politics of who gets to “control the global thermostat” are fraught with ethical dilemmas (Frumhoff and Stephens, 2018).

Whereas some observers argue that such challenges have (imperfect) governance solutions (e.g., Chhetri et al., 2018), others argue that solar geoengineering is inherently ungovernable (Hulme, 2014).

Proponents of investigation into solar geoengineering technologies argue that the international community is unlikely to achieve its political goal of maintaining a maximum 2°C increase in global average surface temperature through traditional mitigation (reducing emissions) alone (Anderson and Bows, 2011). Rather, they assert that solar geoengineering may play a useful role as one small part of a portfolio of responses to climate change by buying time for mitigation and, potentially, for large-scale CO2 removal efforts to be developed and take hold. Proponents also advocate for continued research, including, in some cases, near-term small-scale deployment or field-testing (see, for a discussion, Nicholson et al., 2018).

This argument was further strengthened by the 2015 Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , which increased the level of ambition by adopting a new goal to keep global temperature increases well below 2°C, and if possible to keep them below 1.5°C. This is particularly poignant in light of recent analyses of parties’ emission reduction pledges, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which, assuming full implementation of current NDCs, demonstrate a median warming of 2.6–3.1°C (Rogelj et al., 2016). Given the solar geoengineering-relevant implications of these findings, there is a particular need to amplify conversations concerned with governance pathways to shape solar geoengineering research and, potentially, deployment.

Despite being sidelined from mainstream climate discussions for many years, in the face of increasingly visible climate impacts and inadequate response measures, international attention to solar geoengineering has been increasing over the past five years. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has called for further investigation into how climate engineering technologies, including solar geoengineering, might con- tribute to meeting the Paris Agreement’s ambitious temperature targets (IPCC, 2014). The IPCC has further included a discussion of solar geoengineering technologies in its Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018), noting, in the report’s Summary for Policymakers, that while solar geoengineering approaches may theoretically have a role to play in responding to climate change, there remain a host of important unanswered questions related to governance, ethics, and interactions with the Sustainable Development Goals. Non-state actor attention has also gained momentum, with several new organizations and initiatives emerging in recent years to discuss solar geoengineering and its governance, such as the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, the Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment, and the Climate Overshoot Commission.

The increased attention to solar geoengineering technologies and their implications can in part be explained by the “ambition gap” that exists between international temperature targets and current emissions reductions pledges. It is also likely a result of the Paris Agreement’s call for a balance between anthropogenic emissions and carbon sinks in the second half of this century. This call for carbon neutrality, or “net zero” emissions, has been interpreted by some as an implicit endorsement of CO2 removal technologies. However, because removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it underground is currently a costly and uncertain proposition, the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets also point to greater consideration of solar geoengineering technologies.

Various potential methods for achieving solar geoengineering, and SAI in particular, have the potential to lower the global atmospheric temperature quickly and cheaply, when compared to the direct costs associated with mitigation (Blackstock and Long, 2010). Yet, uncertainties and risks are substantial. Some are concerned that SAI could, for example, have differential and in some cases deleterious impacts on regional temperatures (Hulme, 2014); disrupt rainfall patterns, thus threatening food security (Robock et al., 2008); speed up ozone layer depletion (depending on the reflective particle utilized in an SAI deployment) (Keith et al., 2016); have potentially negative impacts on terrestrial and oceanic biodiversity (McCormack et al., 2016); exhibit downside risks associated with commercial control of the technologies (Blackstock and Long, 2010); and even be used as a weapon of war (Dalby, 2013).

Another interesting debate surrounding solar geoengineering is related to environmental justice implications for climate-vulnerable communities. Some argue that solar geoengineering research is unethical and unjust because it is largely conducted by and advocated for by white men at elite northern institutions and would result in further entrenching existing power structures (Stephens and Surprise, 2020). Others argue that these voices of resistance are themselves making claims for climate-vulnerable people in the developing world, rather than seeking input directly from these communities about their thoughts about the future research of this technology (Táíwò and Talati, 2022).

There are different aspects about solar geoengineering that we can learn about using different types of research. Most of the research done to date relies on computer simulations. Powerful computers simulate the climate system dynamics under different configurations and assumptions. On top of those simulations, different solar geoengineering scenarios are deployed, varying in the amount, type, and location of solar geoengineering deployment. We can also learn from research in the laboratory about the chemistry of certain aerosols simulating stratospheric conditions or the effectiveness of different deployment mechanisms. Beyond this point, learning needs to occur on the field. Some writers argue that research should stop in the lab, if it starts at all (see discussion about the slippery slope above). Others argue that small-scale deployment of solar geoengineering can offer a large advantage and new learning opportunities not available within the lab. The contentious point is to characterize the research versus deployment of solar geoengineering (Keith, 2017). Is there a meaningful way to differentiate and, perhaps more difficult, to govern the boundary between the two?

This tricky ethical landscape – coupled with high uncertainty surrounding the science and distributional impacts of solar geoengineering – has left fertile ground for rich debate surrounding whether solar geoengineering research should be allowed to proceed (this project does not engage with deployment scenarios, which come with another set of issues and complexities). This project invites students to navigate this landscape and develop their own positions on this critical issue. This is particularly exciting for students, because the future of the technology is uncertain and speculative. Students can imagine themselves contributing to the debate and influencing future outcomes.

PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS

Subject of ethics bowl discussion: Should solar geoengineering be considered as a possible climate change response measure?
Format: As in a traditional debate, an ethics bowl requires you to research, explain, and defend a position. Unlike a traditional debate, which pits teams against one another, in an ethics bowl teams need not disagree, but are evaluated on the clarity and quality of their arguments. The ethics bowl format allows students to discuss and analyze a complex moral and ethical issue and to work collaboratively to develop and defend a position on that issue. Central to the ethics bowl format is a requirement that all participants treat one another with courtesy and respect.

The basic format is a two-team structure, with five to seven students on each team, plus a judging team with another five to seven students. The instructor serves as the moderator. Please see the section below on “Options for Extension” for how to adapt this format for larger classes.

Preparation: Prior to the ethics bowl exercise, students should read a selection of the suggested readings above. Instructors should select readings based on the subject matter and level of their course. It is recommended that the instructor do an overview lecture on solar geoengineering prior to the ethics bowl, or use our pre-recorded lectures available on the book’s companion website for this purpose.

Prior to the ethics bowl, each student should individually prepare a two-page briefing note describing the best arguments on both sides of the overarching question of the discussion (i.e., should solar geoengineering be considered as a possible climate change response measure?).

Rules

  1. The moderator (instructor) will randomly assign five to seven students to each of two teams and five to seven students to the judging panel.
  2. The moderator will flip a coin to determine which team will go first.
  3. The moderator will remind the teams of the central questions of the discussion: should solar geoengineering be considered as a possible climate change response measure? If so, under what conditions? If not, what should be the alternative?
  4. Team A will have three minutes to confer and organize their answer to the overarching questions. All students should be prepared to answer the questions, having done the research ahead of time. Students should be instructed to align on the three to four strongest arguments they can agree on to support their answer. Team A will assign one or two spokespeople to present their arguments to the judges.
  5. Team A will then have five minutes to present their argument to the judges.
  6. Team B will then have three minutes to confer and construct their response to Team A’s presentation. They may agree or disagree with Team A. Team B will also assign one or two spokespeople to present their response.
  7. Team B then has three minutes to present their response to the judges.
  8. The judges will then have three minutes to confer on questions they would like to ask of both teams. They will coordinate such that each team is asked roughly the same number of questions.
  9. Each judge will then ask at least one question. No judge may ask a second question until each judge has asked their first question. The judge will make clear which team is being asked to answer each question and responses can be no longer than one minute. Teams may confer for 20–30 seconds prior to answering each question. This Q&A period should last no more than 15 minutes.
  10. The moderator will have provided all students with the scoring criteria (below) before they begin preparing for the ethics bowl (at least a week in advance). Judges should complete their scoring, if possible, during periods when teams are conferring during the ethics bowl. Following the Q&A, judges will finalize their scoring of each team, including their scoring of the Q&A round. Judges should complete their scoring sheets individually and they should confer with one another while filling them out. Once their scoring sheets are complete, judges should calculate which team has earned the most points. This should take no more than ten minutes.
  11. Judges then announce the winner and explain their rationale.
  12. Following the ethics bowl, each student prepares a self and group assessment of the assignment.

Judges Scoring Sheet (One for Each Team)

  1. Was the team’s presentation clear and systematic? (0–5 points) Comments:
  2. Did the team clearly identify and discuss the core ethical issues associated with solar geoengineering? (0–5 points)Comments:
  3. Did the team’s presentation reflect thoughtful consideration of different viewpoints, including those that would be important in the reasoning of those who disagree with the team’s argument? (0–5 points)Comments:
  4. Did the team thoughtfully and convincingly answer the judges’ questions using materials that were assigned in preparing for the ethics bowl? (0–5 points)Comments:
  5. Did the team model respectful dialogue throughout the ethics bowl? (0–5points)

Comments:
Total Points: 0–25
Winner:
Judges’ collective rationale:

Grading

  • Draft briefing paper: 5 points
  • Briefing paper (two pages): 60 points
  • Team points in ethics bowl (students on teams A and B only): 25 points
  • Quality of comments on judges’ score sheets (for judges only): 25 points
  • Self and group assessment (one page): 10 points

Total: 100 points

ADDRESSING COMMON CHALLENGES

Incentivizing even and adequate preparation among all students is the primary challenge with this project. Allocating class time for preparation and discussion can help to ameliorate this issue and provide opportunities to enhance student learning. We suggest allocating one class period for students to discuss their draft briefing papers in small groups prior to the ethics bowl. This allows students to exchange ideas, develop their thinking, and improve their work. We suggest allocating a small number of points to the draft briefing paper to incentivize student participation but keep the stakes low for this early-stage assignment. Following this discussion, students can revise their briefing papers and bring them as reference material for the ethics bowl. We suggest having the final briefing papers due on the day of the ethics bowl to incentivize adequate preparation in advance of the main event.

OPTIONS FOR EXTENSION

This assignment can be adapted for larger classes by extending the project over two class periods or by adding an extra group – Team C – to the existing structure. Alternatively, you might add a team C that responds to both teams A and B. You would need to adjust the suggested time limits to accommodate your class period. In the former example, you might consider breaking the class into two separate ethics bowls, each with a slightly different core question related to solar geoengineering. For example:

  1. Should solar geoengineering be deployed today, only in case of a future emergency, or not at all?
  2. Should research on solar geoengineering be allowed today and if so under which circumstances?

An alternative could be to run the ethics bowls as mentioned above, but assign roles to the different teams, to prime them on different positions. For example, Team A can be referred to as the “Small Island States” and Team B can be referred to as “Rich Western Countries.” Keeping in mind that the goal of ethics bowls is to learn to argue deeply, it would be interesting to see if different roles lead to different perspectives and outcomes during the deliberation.

You might also consider running the ethics bowl in an online format. In this format, we suggest creating breakout groups ahead of time and using those for team and judge conferring periods. The main room would be used for the presentations and Q&A. We suggest using the “speaker pin” function in Zoom to ensure the full presenting team is at the top of the screen. Alternatively, you might ask everyone on the non-presenting (or judging) team to briefly turn off their cameras during the other team’s presentation to achieve the same outcome.

You could, of course, also extend this project structure into other issue areas that also engage with complex ethical or moral issues.

REFLECTIONS ON EQUITY IN THE CLASSROOM

One of the main ethical issues associated with solar geoengineering is the lack of diverse voices conducting research on the topic and being heard in the spheres of power that could eventually decide whether to deploy solar geoengineering. This should be reflected upon during the exercise and should be explicitly discussed in the classroom.

Although the ethics bowl honors that different students contribute to the exercise in different ways inside and outside the class period, the instructor should endeavor to create an environment in which every member of every team feels empowered to speak. This can be achieved by ensuring ample opportunity for in-class preparation, hosting extra office hours for questions in advance of the ethics bowl, aligning low-stakes written assignments with ethics bowl preparation, and amplifying contributions from students who may be less vocal in class. Assigning a self and group assessment following the ethics bowl is also helpful to discourage free riding while simultaneously allowing for different skills, approaches, and contributions to be recognized and rewarded.

Many of the issues raised in this exercise are loaded with assumptions about the world and about our role in it. Exploring those assumptions and encouraging students to challenge and critique based on their own life experience are thus paramount. The exploration of assumptions can be encouraged by the instructor asking questions to students about their worldview, the role they think they can play in addressing climate change, and their views about technology and progress in the human condition. Based on those responses, ask students to reflect on how those worldviews affected the outcomes of the ethics bowl.

REFERENCES

Anderson, K., & Bows, A. (2011). Beyond “dangerous” climate change: emission scenarios for a new world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1934), 20–44. https://doi .org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0290.

Blackstock, J. J., & Long, J. C. S. (2010). The politics of geoengineering. Science, 327(5965), 527–527. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183877.

Chhetri, N., Chong, D., Conca, K., Falk, R., Gillespie, A., Gupta, A., et al. (2018). Governing solar radiation management. American University; School of International Service; Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment; Academic Working Group on Climate Engineering Governance. https://doi.org/10.17606/ M6SM17.

Dalby, S. (2013). Climate change: new dimensions of environmental security. The RUSI Journal, 158(3), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2013.807583.

Frumhoff, P. C., & Stephens, J. C. (2018). Towards legitimacy of the solar geoengineering research enterprise. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119), 20160459. https://doi .org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0459.

Goeschl, T., Heyen, D., & Moreno-Cruz, J. (2013). The intergenerational transfer of solar radiation management capabilities and atmospheric carbon stocks. Environmental and Resource Economics, 56(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10640–013–9647-x.

Hulme, M. (2014). Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering. Polity Press.

IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team: R. K. Pachauri and L. A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC.

IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P. R. Shukla, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.

Jinnah, S., Nicholson, S., & Morrow, D. (2021). Splitting geoengineering governance: how problem structure shapes institutional design. Global Policy, 12(S1), 8–19.

Keith, D. W. (2017). Toward a responsible solar geoengineering research program. Issues in Science and Technology, 33(3), 71–77.

Keith, D. W., Weisenstein, D. K., Dykema, J. A., & Keutsch, F. N. (2016). Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(52), 14910–14914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615572113.

McCormack, C. G., Born, W., Irvine, P. J., Achterberg, E. P., Amano, T., Ardron, J., et al. (2016). Key impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems, with priorities for future research. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1159578.

Nicholson, S., Jinnah, S., & Gillespie, A. (2018). Solar radiation management: a proposal for immediate polycentric governance. Climate Policy, 18(3), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1400944.

Robock, A., Oman, L., & Stenchikov, G. L. (2008). Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113(D16), D16101. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050.

Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., et al. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2°C. Nature, 534(7609), 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307.

Shepherd, J. G. (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty. Royal Society.

Stephens, J. C., & Surprise, K. (2020). The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research. Global Sustainability, 3, e2. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.28. Táíwò, O. O., & Talati, S. (2022). Who are the engineers? Solar geoengineering research and justice. Global Environmental Politics, 22(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00620.

Figure 6.1

Source: Kendra Allenby/CartoonCollections.com.

Figure 6.1 You can annotate this cartoon at https://bit.ly/ TeachingEnv-Humor