Written by TJ Eyerman ‘26.

On September 20 and 21, 2024, the Climate Futures Initiative in Science, Values, and Policy (CFI) hosted the first-ever Princeton Workshop on Geoengineering Ethics and Governance. Organized by Arthur Obst, the workshop offered a platform for philosophers, social scientists, climate scientists, and engineers to discuss geoengineering, primarily solar radiation management, as a proposed solution to prevent catastrophic climate change impacts while decarbonization efforts continue. Experts from various disciplines examined the ethical implications of deliberately altering the Earth’s climate and the risks of exclusionary and hegemonic research. They also asked whether geoengineering could address the biodiversity crisis. Participants engaged with debates about geoengineering’s role in climate policy and explored new perspectives on the human-nature relationship, as well as the dangers of framing geoengineering as an emergency response. Central to the discussions were topics such as the morality of a research moratorium and the need for sustained scholarly attention. Ultimately, the workshop emphasized that geoengineering raises profound ethical and political challenges that must not be overlooked and demonstrated that there are still many unanswered questions across the disciplines.

The session on ‘Government and Legitimacy,’ chaired by Dr. Barbara Buckinx, Research Scholar at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, and a new co-convener of CFI, addressed concerns about the unilateral research and deployment of geoengineering technologies and sparked conversations about what politically legitimate research and deployment might look like. 

Dr. Byron Williston, Professor of Philosophy at Wilfrid Laurier University, opened the session by critiquing the notion that geoengineering is a ‘realistic’ response to climate change solely because mitigation has failed or is failing. He argued that traditional ‘realist’ approaches to geoengineering, which prioritize order and security, neglect the crucial role of justice in governing these new and emerging technologies. According to Williston, a realist approach must prioritize justice—including distributional, procedural, and multi-generational concerns—in policy decisions. This could slow down hasty technological fixes and emphasize inclusive governance that acknowledges historical injustices and uneven global risks. Williston advocated for a multi-dimensional and cautious approach to geoengineering, resisting premature deployment in favor of a just and more thoughtful deliberative process.

Dr. Aarti Gupta, Professor of Global Environmental Governance at Wageningen University, expanded on Williston’s argument by offering five propositions on solar geoengineering governance. She stressed the infeasibility of fair, stable, and effective global governance for technologies like sulfate aerosol injection (SAI) and argued for a global non-use regime. Gupta cautioned that the development and deployment of such technologies pose uncertain risks and could divert our attention from essential climate mitigation efforts. She pointed to existing international legal frameworks that restrict high-risk technologies and suggested they could provide a foundation for preventing SAI. Gupta also emphasized the need for more political oversight of the informal governance structures led by expert communities. Her propositions reinforced the importance of focusing on stronger global mitigation strategies instead of pursuing risky technologies.

Dr. Egemen Kolemen, Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, added a scientific perspective to the discussion. In a paper co-authored with Felipe De Bolle ’26, he raised concerns about the risk of ‘counter-geoengineering,’ where countries such as Russia, that benefit from global warming, might intentionally counteract geoengineering efforts by releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Without global cooperation and governance, geoengineering efforts could be undermined by such actions, making it an unreliable solution. Russia’s potential interest in maintaining warmer temperatures, due to benefits like expanded Arctic shipping routes, was used as an example to underscore the geopolitical complications that could compromise geoengineering’s effectiveness and potentially lead to conflict.

The workshop made it clear that the ethical and governance implications of geoengineering must continue to be examined through a multidisciplinary lens, as the technology presents a complex and multifaceted challenge. The intertwined scientific, political, and moral questions it raises cannot be fully understood or resolved by any single discipline. Discussions at the workshop highlighted the risks of unilateral action, the potential for geopolitical conflict, and the critical need for justice in decision making, all of which require ongoing cross-disciplinary reflection. As the climate crisis worsens, the temptation to pursue quick technological solutions like geoengineering may increase, but the depth and breadth of the ethical and governance challenges demand a patient, inclusive, and cautious approach. Only through continuous examination of these issues across multiple fields can we navigate the uncertainties and profound consequences of deliberately intervening in the Earth’s climate.