First-Order Priorities

Version published:

August 28, 2025 - 3:27pm

Modeling and analysis of existing observations:
- Large eddy simulation modeling studies.
- An energy budget for the Arctic that includes the atmosphere and sea ice is needed to better estimate the impacts of MCB on sea ice. SRM simultaneously alters top of atmosphere (TOA) and surface radiation. Global cooling or warming is mostly based on TOA effects, but Arctic/regional effects will depend a lot on the surface forcing, including sea ice melting.
- Determine how much of the perturbation from MPCT would stay in the Arctic.
New observations and field studies:
- Additional field observations of MPCs to inform models.
  - Identify ships of opportunity for increased observations of clouds and atmosphere in the Arctic; leverage the International Polar Year to increase Arctic observations.
- Small-scale field trials to understand if MPCT would work and deserves further study.
- Studies should be at a scale with measurable results and no impact.
Technology development:
- Options for ice nucleating particles (dry ice, commercial options, biogenic options, dust, etc.).
MPCT would only be effective in winter. Would it be useful to pair this technology with Arctic-focused MCB?
A comprehensive assessment of the potential co-benefits and risks of this approach is needed.

Modeling and analysis of existing observations:
- Large eddy simulation modeling studies.
- An energy budget for the Arctic that includes the atmosphere and sea ice is needed to better estimate the impacts of MCB on sea ice. SRM simultaneously alters top of atmosphere (TOA) and surface radiation. Global cooling or warming is mostly based on TOA effects, but Arctic/regional effects will depend a lot on the surface forcing, including sea ice melting.
- Determine how much of the perturbation from MPCT would stay in the Arctic.
New observations and field studies:
- Additional field observations of MPCs to inform models.
  - Identify ships of opportunity for increased observations of clouds and atmosphere in the Arctic; leverage the International Polar Year to increase Arctic observations.
- Small-scale field trials to understand if MPCT would work and deserves further study.
- Studies should be at a scale with measurable results and no impact.
Technology development:
- Options for ice nucleating particles (dry ice, commercial options, biogenic options, dust, etc.).
MPCT would only be effective in winter. Would it be useful to pair this technology with Arctic-focused MCB?
A comprehensive assessment of the potential co-benefits and risks of this approach is needed.

Version published:

August 28, 2025 - 3:29pm

Across all SRM approaches a governance framework is needed. There is currently no system in place for SRM governance. Governance frameworks are needed for MPCT across multiple aspects.
- Research:
  - Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for MPCT. This framework includes checkpoints (research questions that need to be addressed for the pathway to be viable) and exit ramps (criteria for terminating research if the pathway is deemed not technically or socially feasible). Once developed, this type of research framework could be enacted now, even in the absence of other governance structures and international guidance. Diamond et al. (2022) focuses on physical and technical checkpoints and exit ramps. However, social checkpoints and exit ramps also need development.
  - A multilateral governance framework for small-scale outdoor experiments with development of norms, guidelines, and codes of conduct (UNEP 2023). See the research governance framework detailed in Jinnah et al. (2024a).
- Technology:
  - Technology governance is needed. The questions of who would pay to deploy and who would pay for damages need to be discussed.
Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.

Across all SRM approaches a governance framework is needed. There is currently no system in place for SRM governance. Governance frameworks are needed for MPCT across multiple aspects.
- Research:
  - Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for MPCT. This framework includes checkpoints (research questions that need to be addressed for the pathway to be viable) and exit ramps (criteria for terminating research if the pathway is deemed not technically or socially feasible). Once developed, this type of research framework could be enacted now, even in the absence of other governance structures and international guidance. Diamond et al. (2022) focuses on physical and technical checkpoints and exit ramps. However, social checkpoints and exit ramps also need development.
  - A multilateral governance framework for small-scale outdoor experiments with development of norms, guidelines, and codes of conduct (UNEP 2023). See the research governance framework detailed in Jinnah et al. (2024a).
- Technology:
  - Technology governance is needed. The questions of who would pay to deploy and who would pay for damages need to be discussed.
Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.

Version published:

September 13, 2024 - 7:27pm

UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology’s (COMEST) 2023 Report on the ethics of climate engineering has a slate of recommendations related to SRM covering governance, participation and inclusion, role of scientific knowledge and research strengthening capacity, and education, awareness, and advocacy.
Public engagement, education, and town halls about all aspects of the approach need to be developed and implemented in parallel with research in order to determine whether this approach can be implemented.
Follow core engagement principles identified by the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) advisory committee (Jinnah et al. 2024a):
- Start engagement efforts as early as possible.
- Include social scientists with engagement expertise on research teams during the research design process.
- Don’t presuppose what communities will be concerned about.
- Develop a plan to be responsive to community concern.