Conclusion

SRM technologies are one set of proposed options in a portfolio of strategies to combat the climate crisis. The most crucial priority for policymakers should be to bolster existing climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, including reducing emissions and investing in clean energy alternatives. Though localized SRM technologies like MCB are currently being tested regionally, whether SAI will ever be suitable for deployment is still unclear. Before deployment becomes possible on a large scale, the dilemmas posed by such technologies must be better understood. Despite SRM’s potential to help limit temperature increases, possible risks and governance challenges leave many unanswered questions. These, in combination with misinformation and a lack of public awareness, make deployment uncertain.

In the United States, this has led to more than forty-four proposed state-level bans of SRM, weather control, or environmental manipulation. Whether these bans will effectively protect vulnerable populations or instead quell research that could lead to effective governance remains to be seen and will depend heavily on how legislation is structured, the extent to which scientific experts are consulted, and how the public is engaged.
 

Next steps for scientists, policymakers, and educators include:

• Clearly communicating with the public about SRM’s known benefits and risks;
• Implementing effective governance and research agendas before SRM technologies are potentially deployed on a large scale;
• Ensuring that research agendas are transparent and involve community buy-in;
• Creating more small-scale SRM models and experiments to educate researchers and the public before larger studies and demonstrations are conducted; and
• Accelerating efforts to implement effective climate mitigation and adaptation measures.