Solar geoengineering. It's not just a question of whether or not to do it, but of how it might be done and why.
This week we are joined by Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, to talk about who is making decisions about solar geoengineering and whether or not populations most vulnerable to climate change have a seat at the table.
Solar geoengineering or “Solar Radiation Modification/Management (SRM)” is the large-scale and intentional intervention to increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into space. The purpose is to temporarily limit temperature increase.
Shuchi walks us through why the Alliance is not for or against SRM, why refusing to discuss or research RSM is potentially an inherently privileged standpoint, and why she believes we should center voices from regions already experiencing horrific climate impacts.
Listen in to find out who is currently researching SRM, what the potential risks and benefits are, and how the Alliance plans to make such a controversial topic more open and accessible.
More from the show
Ad-free episodes and other benefits come with a paid subscription.
Carbon Removal Newsroom, the news show that ran alongside this one, is over. Its episodes are still up, on the feed Climate Workers Anonymous now uses.
Carbon Removal Memes is still going.
Resources
The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering
The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson
Full Transcript
Ross Kenyon: Had a hard stop for a nap before. I think it’s maybe the first time that’s been suggested in human history, [unclear].
Shuchi Talati: I don’t actually. Maybe parents — parents have hard stops for naps for their kids. Maybe in my dreams.
Ross Kenyon: In your dreams. Yeah. Well, hey, thanks for listening. This is Ross Kenyon. I’m one of the cofounders of Nori. I’m the head of creative and marketing here. Nori is a carbon removal marketplace based in Seattle, WA. This is Reversing Climate Change, the podcast. It feels so unnatural to say everything out of order, but you know, just mix it up a little bit, try something new in your life and see how it feels. It actually felt not too bad, although not to disappoint. Something that is not that different today is Siobhan Montoya Lavender is here.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I am here indeed. Hi everybody.
Ross Kenyon: The most inauspicious greeting of all time. Sorry, actually I really like having you here, but I did say it in that way.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: That’s quite alright.
Ross Kenyon: But you have the honor of introducing our guest.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I do. I’m excited for this guest and I’m excited for this topic — slash nervous, but also very excited. We have today with us Shuchi Talati, who is the founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering. Big, big topic here, and one that I feel like is almost like saying Voldemort out loud, and I don’t want it to be that way. And so I’m really glad that Ross had the idea to bring you on and that we get to just kind of dive into an open conversation around it.
Shuchi Talati: Thank you so much for having me. I love talking about this topic, especially for people who are coming to it for the first time. And so I promise it’s not that scary. I mean, it is a little bit terrifying, but talking about it shouldn’t be scary.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: That’s right. I feel that too. I think the more we talk and expose things, the less frightening they feel. That’s what I tell my kids anyways.
Ross Kenyon: You talk to your kids about solar geoengineering?
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I’m not there yet, but other things that frighten them, we try to talk them through and also kind of question why things frighten us, and what’s that narrative and where is it coming from. So that’s something I’d love to get into today. Can you talk to us, just for audience who maybe doesn’t know — can you just tell us what solar geoengineering is?
Shuchi Talati: Sure, yeah, happy to. So solar geoengineering, which is also often referred to as solar radiation modification, or SRM, refers to large-scale intentional approaches to reflect sunlight that will cool the planet. So the reason that this is even a thing is because we know that there are natural analogs that function in similar ways. And so, for example, really large volcanic eruptions — most recently Mount Pinatubo in 1991 — sent off aerosols into the upper layer of the atmosphere, the stratosphere, and we saw about half a degree of cooling for over a year.
So this could be something that could significantly cool the planet relatively quickly, but comes with a really deep uncertainty in the types of impacts that might also result. And so things like precipitation, sea level rise and other physical impacts, alongside a lot of social and human systems impacts. So housing, politics, or climate displacement might be affected by something like this. We still really don’t have any answers on, and so research has been very constrained to researchers in the Global North. And so there’s just not a lot of answers on how different types of systems might be impacted by potential use of this type of technology. So I’ll stop there, but I’d love to dive in deep.
Ross Kenyon: Like, the default has been, especially from more progressive circles, has been research is enabling. We should not be opening ourselves to be thinking about this at all. And there’s a moral hazard element to it, where if you open this door, people will decarbonize more slowly or not at all, because they’ll think they have a get-out-of-jail-free card. Where do you think people have made a wrong turn on those assumptions?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. I mean, I think for me, it’s thinking that those things are mutually exclusive, right? Like when we think about decarbonization, I think almost — listen, anyone who works in this field will tell you that it’s a priority for them and how they think about climate change. So SRM is by no means any sort of solution to anything. It could be something that could potentially be able to address some types of impacts, and because of that, we owe it to ourselves to better understand if that’s even a possibility.
And I think, you know, the narrative around talking about this is bad, and talking about this could lead to poor decisions — to me, is a really privileged thing to say, right? Because in that context, we’re saying we’re not experiencing impacts right now and so we have time to not think about this topic. But that’s not true of most of the world, right? We’re seeing really climate vulnerable regions experiencing horrific climate impacts already. And we know those will continue to cascade and grow over the next several decades, regardless — even if we were to hit net zero tomorrow.
And so having a discussion about climate impacts and different types of approaches to address them, whether it’s, you know, small-scale adaptation, large-scale adaptation, maybe solar geoengineering, if that fits through our societal decision-making frameworks, is important to talk about. And being very clear about our priorities from a climate perspective is incredibly important. Thinking about how these types of approaches fit into that full climate response portfolio is incredibly important. But [unclear] ourselves from even having these types of discussions, I think it’s really problematic, and I think is very much dictated by a lot of these kinds of progressive voices, often in the Global North.
And about how we bring in more discussion and more inclusion has to be a part of the way we talk about all types of climate responses. And so, I mean, so I would basically just say that it’s very — I think short sighted, I think kind of fits into a lot of problematic, dare I say, colonialistic structures that we see in climate governance so far.
Ross Kenyon: Fascinating reversal. I could also see people making colonialist or neocolonialist claims against geoengineering or solar radiation modification or management as well, as being a sort of techno-fix way of failing to address the central problems of late capitalism. God, I just put that on so naturally. But couldn’t you just imagine someone making this case right against you too? And I’m sure, like, most of your work is probably pointed towards the left, and this is probably a debate that you have quite often.
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. And by no means do I think using solar geoengineering is a good idea. And I think for me, so many of the questions around SRM is how, and kind of the structures of that will dictate the answer to that question. And I absolutely agree that using SRM as a get-out-of-jail-free card for the fossil fuel industry, or as an excuse to continue emitting, is absurd, right? That will never make sense. In that context, SRM shouldn’t be on the table. And so, yeah, and so I wholeheartedly agree.
But it doesn’t mean that we get to kind of make those decisions for other people. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need to understand, you know, more about what the impacts of these types of technologies might be. Especially because whether or not, you know, we collectively decide to do something like this, that doesn’t mean somebody else won’t. And so understanding kind of what these types of approaches could do, I think, is important to understand regardless.
Ross Kenyon: I would have to agree with you there, and I would have to say that research into this space — I’m always wary of anybody who’s against the idea of researching and discussing something. I think there’s just kind of an inherent bias I have that we should be open to discussion and we should be open to research. And you mentioned, you know, legitimately, that a lot of this discussion and research is happening in the Global North. It’s happening by the countries that have created the most pollution, and it’s happening in the countries where the least risk is occurring at the moment.
And so let’s talk a little bit about the risk of geoengineering, of doing it, and then also the risk of inaction — like, if we don’t do this, what happens? Because I think sometimes we can get really caught up in what are the consequences of doing something without talking about the consequences of not doing that thing.
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And I would love to kind of first address your point about research. And I think it’s so important, because I think science as an institution is something that we put a lot of stock in and that we have a lot of respect for, which I think is incredible. And so for me, coming from academia, you know, doing science is such a core part of how I think about this space. At the same time, you know, the ways we do research shouldn’t be set in stone, and making sure that we’re continuously thinking about how to build a more and more inclusive and just scientific enterprise, I think, is so important.
And so when it comes to solar geoengineering, thinking about how we kind of build better research questions, how we solicit them, how we fund them, how we are building a more inclusive set of researchers — I think it’s so important to making sure that we’re not just doing research, we’re doing better and more inclusive research. Yeah, I mean, it’s such an important question, and I think gets to this kind of risk-risk framework that a lot of people in the solar geoengineering community talk about. We have to talk not just about the risk of solar geoengineering, but we have to put that in the context of the risk of climate change.
And it’s so important about the scenarios that we build and the questions that we ask. And I think for me the question — it’s a really hard dichotomy to think about, because for solar geoengineering it’s not just a question of whether or not you do it, but how it could happen, and the context in which that could occur. And so, you know, whether that happens by a unilateral or rogue actor, if it happens under a collective international agreement, and to kind of what level you do it, and to kind of what extent there is actual, you know, justice-oriented governance framework that’s kind of overseeing how this is implemented, how transparent it is, right?
You know, whether or not it’s a military enterprise versus a public one will really dictate the trust in the outcomes. And so all of these types of questions for me dictate a lot of the risk of potential deployment. And I think when it comes to thinking about the potential for not deploying, it’s so important to actually take that question to the most vulnerable. And so, you know, this new organization that I launched this year is very much focused on building knowledge and questions from the Global South, from the places that are most vulnerable, to asking the questions that we haven’t been asking thus far.
And so thinking about what questions about risk for the different types of systems around weather or agriculture or biodiversity that we just really haven’t engaged with yet. And so I think for me, it’s really hard to kind of answer the question of how we think about doing this versus not, but to really think about all the nuanced questions in between and the ones that we haven’t even asked yet.
Ross Kenyon: And what are some possible future deployments? One scenario that’s stuck with me — I’m pretty sure this is The Ministry for the Future — but when the wet-bulb temperature is just creeping up and local people are going to die, these kinds of local deployments start to look a lot better. And if you’re just in the Global North and you’re scolding the Indian subcontinent, who are trying to make sure their citizens don’t die, there’s something more going on here. And it isn’t just about what it means to alter the planet’s climate deliberately, but the questions of why become a lot more important. It takes on an entirely different texture than if someone is trying to deploy geoengineering at scale globally to protect fossil-fuel-based capitalism or something like that.
Shuchi Talati: I mean, I think for me, you know, that scenario is such an interesting one and comes up a lot in different stories or movies or TV shows, of, you know, especially someone in another country in the Global South deploying this because of a massive kind of crisis in their country. It’s a really interesting scenario that we should examine. But for me, I think a lot of the times I feel like these scenarios are really simplistic and we’re not thinking about also kind of the other questions that a lot of people in those countries might have other than the other crisis, right?
And so, you know, for example, questions around how solar geoengineering would impact renewable energy deployment and grid security is one that I was asked a few different times when I was in India earlier this year. And I don’t have any answers to that question, because we really haven’t investigated that much around what the kind of intersections will be between solar geoengineering and solar energy or wind energy. And so, you know, I think that’s just kind of one example of something that we often don’t really think about, because, you know, especially in this scenario where they’re experiencing massive heat, ensuring that there’s enough energy to run air conditioning systems at really high capacity is probably another question that they’re asking at the time that they could potentially be thinking about solar geoengineering deployment.
And so I feel like thinking about more complicated scenarios and asking the questions that might be more relevant to these places ends up being a lot more common than I think we might think sometimes. And I think the other thing too is there are other impacts than just the immediate kind of heat context for that India scenario, for example. And so thinking about, for example — and this comes up a lot too — is how solar geoengineering might interact with the monsoon and food security and agricultural output in India would also probably be, you know, at the forefront of their minds in potential use of this technology.
And so those are just a few examples, but I think I would say, you know, the question that I get the most when I’m taking this approach to new places, just to kind of introduce it, is: how would this impact my community, my region, my country? And that seems like the most reasonable question to ask, and that is the question that we have no answers to. And so this area of impacts-oriented research in solar geoengineering is one that needs so much more attention, because we really haven’t looked at what these very focused impacts might look like, and especially thinking about how these impacts will interact with the vulnerabilities that are so different in different places. And so that’s one that I feel like there’s just so much more work to do around — the question that seems so simple, but we just really haven’t done that much around.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I mean, that’s a lot of research gap. That’s a big research gap. So it sounds like there’s a lot that needs to be done. And you brought up the legitimate point that this research needs to come from different and disparate voices and approaches. And so how are you at the Alliance thinking about — is it, or are you thinking about — getting, you know, research tools, research funding? Like, are you advocating for research? Where do you see going in the next decade?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. So for me, I’m not focused on kind of building that kind of scientific capacity, but there are really amazing organizations that are. And so, for example, The Degrees Initiative is focused on funding and building projects for this, and they’ve been doing that work for the last couple years. But for me, I think the kind of work that I’m more focused on is trying to build the capacity of civil society and policymakers around this topic to be able to engage and ask questions.
And one of the reasons I’m so focused on that is because right now I would say a lot of the solar geoengineering field is very supply driven rather than demand driven. And so it’s hard to say that you want to fund more research when people aren’t necessarily asking for it. So they’re not asking for it because they don’t know that this is a conversation that’s even happening. And so getting more organizations and policymakers engaged in this topic creates demand for the types of research that need to be done. And that said, to also build kind of the governance frameworks that are needed for that, for research frameworks and enterprises in different places.
And so in terms of thinking about kind of how my organization’s engaging with that over kind of the next few years, it’s really thinking about what capacity building looks like, what that means, how to do that effectively, and how you do that in a lot of different places. And it takes resources, it takes a lot of conversations and figuring out kind of where this makes sense, who kind of would be willing to engage with this, and who would be a partner to lead this work in different places.
I think one of the kind of biggest challenges in building, whether it’s in science or around governance, is making sure that it’s not built in a biased way and it’s not owned by a Global North institution. And so making sure that I have partners in different places that own this work, that are leading this work, where then I can help contribute resources, knowledge or funding or capacity, is so important to kind of the way I want to execute this mission, and I hope is the way we build this field in the future. But I think it will be consequential for the types of research we do and the types of institutions that are engaged in this work. So I’ll stop there, but it’s such a good question, to think about how to shape kind of the growth of the scientific enterprise.
Ross Kenyon: A scientific enterprise like this presumes a nonzero probability that solar geoengineering is going to be deployed at some point. Do you think it’s — maybe you don’t think it’s inevitable, but do you think it’s more likely than not?
Shuchi Talati: Not necessarily. I mean, I think for me a lot of this research could end up showing that it will, or that it’s a really bad idea in some places, right? And we just really don’t have any answers to those questions. You know, I think relatively speaking, in terms of, you know, how much climate funding — or climate research funding — we’re spending versus how much we’re putting into solar geoengineering, it’s pretty much nothing. And so to even have a little bit more in a modeling context wouldn’t actually be a huge lift and would enable us to do a lot more work in so many different types of questions.
And I think kind of the notion that asking about it leads to us using it — it’s so dangerous to make that assumption. And I totally see kind of where people are coming from on it, that, you know, the more you talk about it, the more likely it is that people will think it’s a good idea, something that they never would have thought of before. But for me, I mean, that seems so undemocratic, to say we’re going to [unclear] you because we are afraid of how you’re going to use it.
I think it’s equally as likely that talking more about solar geoengineering will scare the sh*t out of them even more, to not wanting to engage with it and to say this is insane, I can’t believe you would even think about this, and we want to institute, you know, a ban on this type of technology, right? So I feel like we often hear like the flip side of that, of, you know, talking about it will lead to its use. But I think it’s equally as likely that talking about it will have people being, you know, being very [unclear] about it.
But I think for me, the kind of core of this is that we have to build kind of more rationally centered knowledge that people have access to, because in a vacuum I think it’s not just, you know, information or no information. I think it’s information or misinformation. And solar geoengineering is like ripe for conspiracy theories as it already is, right? Like, I think, you know, like the notion of chemtrails and, like, you know, CIA-led deployment — I mean, like, that stuff is out there already. And so making sure that we have, like, science-based knowledge and building that foundation early, I think, is going to be so important to kind of fighting the misinformation campaigns that we’re already starting to see.
Ross Kenyon: Yeah. It’s really intriguing to me, and maybe I’m reading too far into this, in which case you can tell me no, I’ve gone the wrong direction, but I’m catching a lot of faith in a person to decipher information, and in favor of, like, free speech is important. Whereas, like, the impacts, especially in the last decade, have been towards: we need more censorship, we need more control to combat misinformation. And it seems like maybe some of the things you said sound like you have more faith that we need more open discussion rather than more monitored or more censored discussions to be able to move forward as a species, even potentially in light of climate change and geoengineering. Am I correct in sensing this, or am I too far in my own little world?
Shuchi Talati: I would say it’s mixed, I feel like.
Ross Kenyon: Mixed. Okay. That’s a good answer.
Shuchi Talati: Because I feel like the work that I’m trying to build isn’t necessarily to, like, go, like, just talk to, like, random people on the street. It’s going to, like, you know, climate and, you know, knowledge-oriented institutions, to try and engage with them and then for them to lead their own kind of community capacity building exercises, right? Like, I don’t have the knowledge of the diversity and, like, the kind of nuances of different communities in all of these different places. And so that’s why I’m trying to work with climate organizations and research institutions and universities, to start these conversations first and for them to then help figure out what a broader capacity building exercise looks like in their, you know, communities, in their countries.
And I think that might look different in different places. But what I was trying to say is, like, when you think about how knowledge is either limited or kind of made available, it’s that accessibility and kind of work towards fighting misinformation that I think we’re not actively doing for solar geoengineering. And I think in a vacuum of not trying to have these conversations with more people in more places, I think we’re basically inviting massive misinformation campaigns. So.
Ross Kenyon: Had me solidly in my place. I think you’re walking a very important line here. It’s — the nuance is good, go ahead.
Shuchi Talati: But it is really hard though. I mean, like, we see how much misinformation has, like, absolutely inundated the United States and how challenging that is for elections, and that terrifies me, right? But, like, I don’t think me trying to build knowledge leads to more of that. I’m hoping it will lead to less of that. But I don’t think in a vacuum you can just kind of say we’re not going to talk about this and then hope that information doesn’t [unclear]. Because some type of information is gonna get out there eventually, and my hope is that it will be good information.
Ross Kenyon: It’s like parents not wanting to talk to their kids about sex, and they’re just going to hear it on the schoolyard and, you know, it’s going to be horrible nonsense.
Shuchi Talati: Like, 100% guarantee.
Ross Kenyon: Judging from the stuff that I heard on the playground, from parents who are too shy for their own good. Good luck following that one up here — there’s nowhere to go.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: Now that we’ve compared geoengineering to sex, I’m curious how you approach these communities, these environmental organizations, these policymakers, when there is so much kind of knee-jerk fear around this. I’m kind of curious, how do you approach that? And then I also want to know, would you consider the burning of fossil fuels a form of geoengineering? And then, like, how do you bring that to people?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. So to answer your second question first, I would say no, because I think a core component of solar geoengineering is intent. And so, you know, while some people would say, well, now we know the impacts, we’re intentionally continuing to burn them — I don’t think that’s quite the case, right? You know, I think there are energy needs around the world that we are trying to decarbonize, and, you know, we’re doing okay — well, at least kind of we’re doing the best. I would hope that that would look a lot different, a lot more quickly, but I don’t think that is geoengineering. So for me, that is kind of at the core of what these types of approaches look like.
But in terms of how you take this to people, it’s really hard. And I have had to be really careful and thoughtful in how I present this work. And oftentimes a lot of people open up in a very skeptical way, and oftentimes people don’t even respond. So it takes a lot of pushing to get people to want to engage with me, to convince them that, you know, it’s worth their time to talk to me. That might not be the case, and that’s okay too, right? But I think, you know, what’s really important is to not immediately tell them that they’re wrong and to disagree with kind of how they’re coming to this topic.
And so, you know, it’s being kind of really understanding of where they’re coming from, but then also saying, you know, like, that could be right. And, you know, the work that we’re trying to build is not to tell you that, you know, you should think about this in any certain way, trying to bias you to say that we should do this or that we shouldn’t, but that you deserve to be engaged in this conversation. And that, you know, without, you know, your voices in [unclear] — like, it is starting to move, right? We’re seeing so much momentum in the last year, and so these conversations are starting. And so now the question isn’t whether or not to have this conversation, it’s whether or not you’re going to be part of it.
And the work that I’m trying to build is to help you have the platforms to engage, to build knowledge around, to engage with, you know, your institutions, and to help you shape your own perspectives. And usually that’s what ends up being kind of where we connect. And all I’m looking for in these conversations too is hopefully having a willingness to continue to engage with me by the end of it. And I’ve, you know, luckily been able to see so far some success, and it’s really exciting to see kind of people shift from, like, an immediate skepticism to just a willingness to, you know, continue to talk to me and engage with me, and to start building that relationship and to build trust.
Ross Kenyon: The last year — we’re basically, I mean, I feel like there’s big gaps for me, like when Holly Jean Buck put out her last book, After Geoengineering — well, I guess it was a couple of books ago — and whenever I see something that David Keith does. I don’t feel like I see a lot of the, I guess, Andrew Lockley and the geoengineering newsletters. I don’t know that I’m seeing a ton of stuff out there. Where is this happening?
Shuchi Talati: So I mean, there’s three different bodies that have released reports about geoengineering this year alone. The White House just released a research plan and governance framework for the first time in June. The European Commission released a statement about wanting to engage in governance on solar geoengineering for the first time this June. So it’s been a lot of shift. It’s kind of astounding, actually. And so, and you know, we’ve also seen, like, really problematic momentum — like we’ve seen, you know, [unclear] claiming that they want to deploy solar geoengineering and sell cooling credits. And so all of that has happened in the last 12 months and more, right?
We’ve also seen the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Working Groups Two and Three, talk about solar geoengineering for the first time. The National Academies report came out in March 2021 — that was, you know, both the research recommendations and recommendations for research governance. And, you know, since then we’ve also seen kind of a growing US funding of research at NOAA that’s, I think, at now at about $11 million a year. You know, it’s not always in the public eye, but it’s been quite a bit of shift in the last two or three years.
And I think if you look back at CDR maybe like five or six years ago, I feel like it’s in a similar space of just kind of bubbling and starting to get on people’s radars. And that’s not to say I think solar geoengineering should go as mainstream as CDR, but to say that it’s getting there in a much faster way, and we’re not really thinking about what that means and the types of, you know, different institutions and governance mechanisms we should be building.
Ross Kenyon: It was one community, pretty much, when I started in carbon removal. That was six years ago, maybe a little bit before that. There was still a lot of overlap, or even people who were endorsers of carbon removal considered carbon removal to be a part of geoengineering. And at some point there was some sort of cellular split, where it’s like, we don’t want anything to do with the nuts who are hanging out in the SRM room, and people don’t think of it this way anymore. But there was a period where it was pretty much all the same people in carbon removal and in geoengineering, and they were all intertwined.
I mean, David Keith is maybe the best example of this — is one of the godfathers of both spaces, as the great unifier between these schools of thought, or these approaches. But do you have any sense of, like, sociologically what happened here?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, I mean, well, I will say one thing is that I don’t think that divide is prevalent in other places in the world. And so talking about geoengineering actually still refers to both of these types of approaches in a lot of places. So I’m just putting that out there. But I would say, I think as CDR started to get more funding, I think it started to kind of be in these modeling spaces in ways where it would play out. With CDR, I think it started to drive a community that was oriented towards deployment, right? It was oriented towards, you know, the notion that we need deployment. The question is how, and how best to do it. And that is not the question for solar geoengineering. The question is whether or not this makes sense still.
And I think that was the core divide for me, as someone who has also been in both of these spaces for a lot of my career. It was that divide of, there is an understanding that we’re going to need CDR, but we don’t know that for solar geoengineering yet. And that for me, and I think for a lot of people — and I think, right, like over the last, like, three or four years the community has grown so exponentially as well. And those are people who were never around for this. And so, you know, they’re just joining this new field and not even ever having engaged with solar geoengineering. And so for them, like, that kind of combination, like, never made sense. And then so many more of those people, like newer people, I think that divide just got stronger and stronger, especially in the United States.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I’m also curious — this is such a burgeoning field, and you talk about CDR six years ago when it was in its, you know, total infancy, and then you’re kind of at that stage. What made you decide to get into this, and where do you see it going?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, I mean, so I got into this field when it was CDR and solar geoengineering, and topics that were super fascinating to me. And so, I mean, I’m a trained engineer, and the idea of these out-there approaches was just — it was really new to me, and I was kind of enthralled by the policy questions that would stem from these types of approaches. And I just dove into it and was just really fascinated by how important both of these things could be. And it’s been so interesting to watch that kind of play out over 15 years. I first learned about this in 2009.
And to go from a place where me talking about these things to my, you know, friends in 2010 and being called crazy, to it becoming, for CDR, so mainstream and a really kind of, at least from my perspective, respected and important area of research, has been really astounding. But I haven’t seen the same for solar geoengineering. You know, the momentum that I talked about and that shift is becoming more tangible. And so when, you know, when I saw that kind of growth but without kind of more engagement and more kind of willingness, is why I decided to start this organization.
I feel like for solar geoengineering there’s an even more narrow window of time to do this kind of work — to build governance institutions, to build capacity especially in climate vulnerable regions, to build a more kind of justice-oriented field — because of the nature of the approach, right? You know, I think for CDR it’s extremely infrastructure intensive. It’s very expensive, it’s slow, it’ll take decades to scale. All of those things are the total opposite for solar geoengineering, right? Potentially very fast, it is relatively cheap, and, you know, it could happen imminently. I don’t think it could happen in the next— but, you know, it could happen much, much faster than we might expect. And so I feel like that window to actually think about how to build these, like, governance frameworks at international scales is actually, like, something that we should probably be thinking about right now.
Ross Kenyon: Well, you just made the case pretty well for someone listening who says, well, why bother with the decades of hardcore carbon removal infrastructure if we can skip all that and spray some chemicals and be done with it? Make the most basic case here for someone who just heard that and it sounds very appealing for the first time.
Shuchi Talati: Well, and you know, I think one of the most important aspects of solar geoengineering, though, is that it cannot exist without CDR, right? You cannot stop using solar geoengineering unless you are building CDR at scale. And so thinking about these approaches in a vacuum just doesn’t make sense to me. They have to fit into this broader portfolio, right? And so to be able to stop using solar geoengineering, you have to get to net zero, you have to get to net negative to be able to eventually stop using this type of approach. And then, you know, in the meantime, do we have to stop, like — we just keep doing it forever, though?
Ross Kenyon: Your cat doesn’t agree.
Shuchi Talati: But it’s my cat, sorry.
Ross Kenyon: Exactly.
Shuchi Talati: A street cat that my children have adopted. [unclear] with the cat.
Ross Kenyon: Either way, okay. That’s good. I think in a sci-fi movie, yeah.
Shuchi Talati: But I mean, in the context of the impacts of solar geoengineering and the dangers and risks we would be accumulating rather than mitigating — by not scaling CDR and not figuring out [unclear], I think would be catastrophic. We don’t have a good understanding of what those other impacts might be. Solar geoengineering does not address the climate change impacts by any stretch of the imagination. We would see, like, rapidly acidifying oceans that we’re not addressing, right? And you know, that’s just one example.
And so we don’t know how continuing emissions interacting with a bunch of weather systems might interact with growing solar geoengineering interactions with weather systems. I mean, I just don’t think that’s a reasonable way to think about solar geoengineering at all. And I think that’s kind of — but that’s the scenario that I think most people talk about when they want to say solar geoengineering is absurd, because this entire enterprise is absurd. But I feel like this approach, in the context of everything else, is so important, right? Because it’s never going to happen in a vacuum. And so making sure that we’re building the right governance framework to make sure it’s happening alongside others, you know, potentially in the best possible way, is critical.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: Well, there’s probably people that think it’s absurd to live through record droughts. And it’s absurd to let the coral die. And there’s a lot of absurdity that’s already happening in our world. And I think little by little, it does make other kind of outlandish ideas seem less absurd to a certain degree. Would you agree with that?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, I mean, like, the fact that we’re even talking about solar geoengineering at all, I would say, like, is insane. But, like, that’s where we are. Like, under no circumstances did any of us want to be in a world where talking about solar geoengineering makes sense, but that is where we are. And so that has been because of the climate impacts that we’re experiencing. And so, yeah, I mean, we’re, like — we’re on track to, you know, lose the Arctic ice. I mean, that’s absurd. I mean, like, to think about kind of where we’re consigning ourselves to already, it’s terrifying to me. And that’s not to say that it’s necessarily a solution, but maybe it could help with some things, and I think that makes it worth talking about.
Ross Kenyon: Does it take courage to do what you do? Do you feel exposed in a bad way to do this kind of leadership?
Shuchi Talati: Well, it’s very kind of you to say, first of all. But yeah, I mean, mostly I’m terrified. I have no idea what I’m doing, but I feel like it’s just really important to me. And I feel like in the context of, like, not seeing this type of work potentially happening anywhere else — and so I just wanted to try and help build something to motivate more of this type of work. I mean, and I get it from both sides all the time, of, like, you know, either people telling me that I’m advocating for deployment and I’m a bad person, or people telling me that I’m anti-research by talking about wanting to build capacity and trying to talk about justice.
So but for me, I mean, that makes me think I’m doing the right thing. Both people are telling me I’m doing it wrong. And I think I’m most heartened by taking the Alliance to these different places and having the conversation. It’s been really motivating. And so I hope that more people are able to kind of come to this space and recognize the importance of discussion and governance and deliberation and how the justice — especially procedural justice. But I think it’s going to take time. But that’s okay.
Ross Kenyon: Thank you for sharing all of this with us. It’s a really interesting topic. I think anything that’s at least somewhat likely deserves research and smart people thinking about the outcomes here. And as a contingency — I don’t think any of us would want to show up when there is a climate event that requires immediate catastrophic intervention, like the first rollout of SRM might be, and to be unprepared for it. That sounds like the worst outcome of any, and also it is a non-negligible probability. I can see that pretty easily, and I imagine you could too, which is the terrifying part of that. We’re just unprepared for it and it happens anyways. Is that not one of the worst-case scenarios that we could have happen?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah, absolutely. And yeah, I mean, I don’t think it’s necessarily inevitable, but I do see it as being morally [unclear] if we don’t have more answers to questions, and if we aren’t kind of thinking about how to have more kind of cross-regional discussions about the very heterogeneous impacts that will occur. And I don’t think there’s going to be, like, an easy answer around this at all, given how, you know, complex and challenging our climate system is.
I think even when we have answers around what impacts could look like — and I think we’re always going to have some uncertainty related to that — I think we’ll likely have very different impacts in different places. And so understanding how to make decisions in the context of imperfect information and very, you know, diverse settings, I think it’s going to be incredibly challenging. But I think having a unilateral actor do that in the context of no information, rather than imperfect information, is even more terrifying to me, for sure.
Ross Kenyon: Well, as someone who got rebuffed on this show multiple times for being inadequately nuanced — where can I and listeners find the nuance? Is it on your website? Where do you want to direct people to start having these conversations and thinking their way through?
Shuchi Talati: Yeah. I mean, so hopefully there are some, I think, pretty good resources, which is sgdeliberation.org. And there’s also a page of other resources on the website that’ll direct you to some of the reports that I mentioned and just organizations and people and papers that I really respect. So yeah, please take a look, and hopefully those resources will just lead you to the next ones.
Siobhan Montoya Lavender: I really appreciate this conversation. And I feel just that I myself already feel more empowered to discuss this more in the future, and I think that’s a win.
Ross Kenyon: Well, Shuchi, thanks for being here. Thank you, Siobhan, for helping cohost. So, thanks so much for listening and have a lovely day.
