Ilan Gur + Mark Symes Q&A – reflections on a year of discovery
Our latest programme Exploring Climate Cooling, led by Programme Director Mark Symes, aims to support the scientific research required to reach more definitive conclusions on potential approaches for cooling the Earth.
Last December, we sat down with Mark and our CEO Ilan to discuss the thinking behind ARIA’s Future Proofing Our Climate and Weather opportunity space. Since then, Mark has continued to lead an international engagement effort, seeking input and feedback on our proposed approach. To mark the launch of our programme funding call, we caught up with Mark and Ilan to hear more about the programme development process, how it’s been designed and what comes next.
Mark, can you first briefly summarise the focus of this programme and the goal?
Mark: We know the Earth is getting warmer. Global temperatures are predicted to rise several degrees in the coming decades. Given that it takes decades after emission for the full heating effect of carbon dioxide to be realised, there is a real risk of triggering climate tipping points even if we were to fully decarbonise today. This is why there has been increased interest in climate engineering – but we currently have scarce data on whether any of the proposed approaches are scientifically sound or effective.
This programme is seeking to answer fundamental scientific questions on whether approaches designed to delay or avert catastrophic climate tipping points could be feasible, scalable and safe. Through a multipronged research effort, we’re hoping to equip ourselves with critical data needed to determine whether approaches for cooling the Earth might work, what their effects might be, and how they could be developed responsibly.
Talk us through the discovery and engagement process. How did you go about defining a programme from the broader opportunity space?
Mark: We’ve spoken to hundreds of people across the R&D ecosystem, both in the UK and abroad – including chemists, oceanographers, meteorologists, climate scientists, ecologists, physicists, social scientists, and more. We wanted to cast the net as wide as possible, to get as many reactions and viewpoints on what we were proposing.
Many of the most important learnings came out of a workshop we held back in January. We brought together a set of international experts with different perspectives, and varied levels of support, scepticism, and concern for climate intervention strategies. They played a crucial role in helping us determine the objectives we wanted to shoot for, and how to best incorporate social science and governance within the research programme.
Were there any turning points or key moments that shaped the development of the programme?
Mark: One of the key learnings was that almost no physical data exists on approaches that are widely discussed as prospective technologies for actively lowering global temperatures.
From speaking to a range of researchers and experts, it was surprising to see just how little data there is on the actual physical phenomena behind these approaches, and how few attempts have been made to collect that data either inside the lab or in the field. Computer modelling is an essential first step in establishing the basic science behind a technology – but in isolation it does not provide the data necessary to understand the effects of an approach with the confidence needed to really discuss its viability.
There is a lot of debate around the risks of approaches designed to cool the Earth, as well concerns that these approaches reduce the incentive to reach net zero. As you built a programme in this space, did any of these concerns lead you to waver in your belief that this is the right challenge for ARIA to focus on?
Ilan: These are entirely valid concerns, many of which we share -- particularly the criticism that climate intervention strategies amount to treating the symptoms, not the disease. Both Mark and I believe that rapidly decarbonising at scale is by far the most important thing we need to do as a society to curb climate change.
But there are at least two reasons we think it’s imperative to understand the scientific basis for potential intervention approaches, and why our conviction for developing a programme in this space has only grown over the course of the discovery process.
First, as the international community grapples with an escalating climate crisis, talk of exploring interventions to combat its worst effects is growing. But it’s concerning that discourse is progressing without a robust scientific understanding of the approaches being discussed. We see an opportunity to deepen that understanding, in order to put us in a more robust position as a society to deliberate and evaluate these approaches.
Second, even if we were to achieve a carbon-neutral global economy today, the warming that is already locked in due to greenhouse gas emissions that have already occurred could lead to climate tipping points with serious ramifications for societies and communities around the world. By investing in research to understand the efficacy of climate intervention strategies now, we are equipping ourselves with the information needed if active response to tipping were ever to become an exigent matter.
Responsible governance is central to this programme. How did you align on its oversight and governance structure and mechanisms?
Mark: We’ve taken a multifaceted approach which we’ll evolve based on learnings as the programme gets underway. In our programme thesis, we set out a series of technical considerations for any experiments, assessing their size and scope, and ensuring any testing is conducted on the smallest possible scale.
Since then, we’ve developed robust governance and oversight measures in consultation with experts, which we'll continue to evolve. An example of this is that any outdoor experiments will require restrictions on size and duration, as well as being reversible, and should sit well within common practice and the bounds of safety norms. We’ve also built out non-technical considerations like public engagement, and how we go about consulting with stakeholders as activities progress.
We’ve established an independent, international oversight committee, composed of experts from a wide range of areas relevant to climate science, climate engineering, and governance. Their job is to provide recommendations to ARIA’s leadership as we make funding decisions and manage projects – scrutinising both the technical and non-technical aspects of any funded projects.
Ilan: The discovery process served to emphasise the importance of effective governance, particularly given that less accountable actors are already operating in this space. As a non-profit, publicly funded agency, our sole responsibility is to serve society, and we thus have an opportunity to set the right precedent. Our approach is grounded in our commitment to responsible stewardship and the public good.
What will success look like for the programme?
Mark: We want to make sure we’re not sitting here in five years’ time, having the same conversation about the same uncertainties related to these approaches, or in the worst case advancing ideas that have not been sufficiently evaluated. That will require doing the basic groundwork to provide evidence on which interventions can be ruled out because they’re technically infeasible or ethically unsound, and which are more promising and may warrant further study.
Exploring Climate Cooling is the latest in a series of climate programmes. How does it relate to ARIA’s other efforts?
Ilan: We have a number of opportunity spaces and programmes that touch on climate in different ways, which is unsurprising given the varied and severe challenges posed by climate change. One of our closely related efforts is Forecasting Tipping Points, led by co-PDs Gemma Bale and Sarah Bohndiek. While Exploring Climate Cooling sets out to explore the research required to understand approaches that could be used to delay or avert climate tipping points, Forecasting Tipping Points aims to deepen our understanding of the tipping points themselves – when they might occur and what their consequences would be.
As we recruit new Programme Directors, we may explore other potentially transformative new technologies to help with both climate adaptation and global efforts to decarbonise. Our guiding principle will remain the same – what research areas could unlock transformative benefits for society which aren’t currently served by existing R&D efforts?
What are the next steps for this programme?
Mark: We want people from around the world to apply, and would encourage collaborations between UK and international researchers. So if you think your research is relevant, please submit a concept paper. And even if you don’t want to apply, but would like to share your feedback on our approach, you can do so within the updated thesis on our website.
Ilan: We’ve designed transparency into this programme from the get go. The effects of crossing tipping points would be global, so we firmly believe any information on the impacts and efficacy of approaches should be shared beyond ARIA and beyond the UK. We’re excited to see the proposals come in, and we look forward to sharing back our findings with the international community.
Find out more about our Exploring Climate Cooling programme.