Talk:Solar radiation modification

Changed short description

I've just changed the short description to "Artificial reflection of sunlight to mask global warming" because I think it's more accurate. Previously it was: "Reflection of sunlight to reduce global warming". EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I propose that the short description and the definition in the first paragraph should align, and should reflect authoritative reports.

IPCC:

a range of radiation modification measures not related to greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation that seek to limit global warming. Most methods involve reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface, but others also act on the longwave radiation budget by reducing optical thickness and cloud lifetime.

UNEP:

a range of approaches not related to GHG emission reduction or removal that seek to limit or reduce global warming.

NASEM:

attempts to moderate warming by increasing the amount of sunlight that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation

I prefer the latter half of NASEM because it says what SRM is, rather than what it is not. As for the verbs, I propose to defer to the IPCC's 'limit'. How about in the first paragraph

a range of approaches [alternative: 'measures'] to limit global warming by increasing the amount of sunlight that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation

and in the short description:

approaches to limit global warming by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space

I will wait for @EMsmile 's reaction before implementing. TERSEYES (talk) 07:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Good points. This makes me think: Let's add a section called "definition" towards the start of the article where we present those different definitions that you have listed above. I think this is useful to show the readers that there are similar but slightly different definitions out there. One problem I see with your proposed short description is that it is a bit too long, as per this guidance: WP:SDLENGTH. But I can see the possible advantage of using the verb "to limit" instead of "to mask". EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

A 'definition' section could indeed be beneficial, especially with respect to the inclusion of cirrus cloud thinning. I would amend your proposal to be something like 'Definition and names', which could also explain SRM (management and modification), climate intervention, (solar) geoengineering, climate engineering. TERSEYES (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the short description has become too long now (in comparison with the guidelines). I'll think of shorter options. And yes, we could have a section on "Definition and terminology" but I think if we talk about other topics that have their own Wikipedia articles, like climate engineering, we'd need to be very brief so we don't introduce overlap. EMsmile (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines about the short description length say "More than 80% of short descriptions use fewer than 40 characters (including spaces)". Looking for shorter options, how about this: "Methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth." This description is 40 characters long, including spaces. Or this (a bit longer): "Techniques to reflect sunlight to reduce warming of Earth." (for comparison the current version is 90 characters long: "approaches to limit global warming by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space") EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Thanks for the great suggestions so far. I would like to add thoughts!

I agree with @TERSEYES that the short description and the definition in the first paragraph should align and reflect authoritative reports. However, here I would suggest it is derived both from all the IPCC-definitions and wording (bold added):

• "Solar radiation modification refers to the intentional modification of the Earth’s shortwave radiative budget with the aim of reducing warming. Artificial injection of stratospheric aerosols, marine cloud brightening and land surface albedo modification are examples of proposed SRM methods. SRM does not fall within the definitions of mitigation and adaptation" (IPCC, 2012b, p. 2) https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
• “Solar Radiation Management (SRM) involves large-scale methods that seek to reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system." (p. 25-26) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf

IMO, there should be an aspect of "intentional," [alternative: "deliberate"] and/or "large-scale," and/or "artificial" in the short description, and first sentence of the article. This would clarify the scale and intent of the proposed methods - and is in line with definitions provided above.

Suggestions for short description, building on @EMsmile's suggestion: "Deliberate and large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth". However, 69 characters incl. spaces. Or: "Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth" (54 characters) and would suggest adding the above mentioned terms in first sentence, for example:

Solar radiation modification (SRM), or solar geoengineering, refers to a range of large-scale methods that seek to limit global warming by intentionally increasing the amount of sunlight (solar radiation) that the atmosphere reflects back to space or by reducing the trapping of outgoing thermal radiation. 1HumbleB (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, these are great suggestions. To include in the brainstorming: the short description for climate engineering is currently: "Deliberate and large-scale intervention in Earth's climate system". I think I like your proposal Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth best. And I'll start a new section below about the first sentence of the lead. EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response @EMsmile. Thank you for your input. Based on our discussion, I have updated the short description to "Large-scale methods to reflect sunlight and cool Earth" for now. 1HumbleB (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Text on net zero

I've removed two recently added sentences. These were digressing into other areas and difficult to understand (the second one was overly long). Also using 4 low-quality primary sources at the end of the statements that only vaguely fit is not how it works. I am moving them here the talk page in case further discussion is needed:

+++++++

However, serious challenges to the notion that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the scale needed to achieve net zero goals exist. Additionally, the various climate modelling efforts undertaken to determine the likely trajectory of global average temperatures after net zero concede that, as with the case in all such model studies, their results are only indications based on what are admittedly incomplete data inputs, such that "substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of emissions is a feature of a minority of the assessed models and thus cannot be ruled out purely on the basis of models." EMsmile (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the suggestion that the additional two sentences represent a "distraction," is there some pressing need to keep the discussion so brief as to allow major areas of dispute to be omitted? Perhaps we can agree that there is a problem of misinformation in general on the subject of global warming affecting all concerned? (A case in point is SRM itself, which has been swept under the rug by the mainstream machine.) So for example, the naive proposal initiated by the IPCC and now taken as the accepted approach by the mainstream, to shoot for net zero dependent on massive and fantastical CDR, as it is presented in this SRM entry, raises a red flag. Why should such a hotly debated CDR strategy be offered to laymen here as given? Shouldn't there be at least minimal effort to qualify the logic of the mainstream proposal by informing readers that the assumption of massive-scale CDR is a great leap of faith? Secondly, perhaps you could explain why the 4 citations are of "low quality"? The academic literature casting serious doubt on the ability to perform the assumed CDR at scale is considerable. The papers cited are typical and include statements on both singular CDR methods and CDR in general, which to me seems quite appropriate. As for the statement on ZEC I will create a revision that is shorter and simpler. RPeel (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello RPeel, I notice that you are new to Wikipedia, so let me extend a warm welcome (actually not technically new but you haven't made many edits yet, so a "newbie" in that sense :-) ). There are some guidelines that you might not be aware of and which might provide some answers to your questions:

• One is WP:DUE which means we have to provide information with due weight. I copy from that policy page: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
• Secondly, we are supposed to rely more on secondary sources than on primary sources, see here: WP:PSTS. This is why I called the sources that you used "lower quality" (certainly lower quality, in the Wikipedia sense, than the IPCC reports).
• Also, we have a policy against adding a high number of refs to one sentence, see WP:Overcite.
• Lastly, this is an encyclopedia where one article fits neatly together with other articles. It means that a single article does not have to explain everything but it needs to refer to, and integrate with, other articles. If you want to add a lot of content about net zero emissions, then I object and say that the reader can find that at net zero emissions. We should keep the SRM article focused on SRM, not on a wider debate (sure we can mention the wider debate if there is one but rather than point the readers to the relevant other article). EMsmile (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now merged "context" and "rationale" into one section as I could see that there was overlap developing. Also, "context" could blow out into a really big section if we started to explain here everything there is to know around climate change, net zero emissions and so on. I think we should rather spend time explaining better the proposed methods and the risks involved. EMsmile (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well thank you for letting me know about these wiki restrictions and rules. You are right, I do not spend much time editing wiki. I've got my focus elsewhere. Specifically on our topic, I'm co-authoring a book on SRM with two others (MIT chemist/physicist and acclaimed post-neoclassical economist) so I'm trying to make sure that the hapless public doesn't continue to get bamboozled. Unfortunately, I think the attitude wiki has toward primary sources is very problematic when it comes to cutting edge science because there is very little secondary source material to draw from. Additionally, those secondary sources are often prone to error or oversimplification particularly if they are led by journalists with little or no science background. Citing Carbon Brief on committed warming is a good example. Its author, Hausfather, although a scientist of sorts, is one of those who loves models, does all his science with a computer, and has been sucked into the commodification of global warming by working for dubious carbon credit efforts of the corporate world that sees our plight as merely another business trend. Thanks again. RPeel (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional explanations. Actually, all the IPCC reports are classed as secondary sources (in Wikipedia sense), so we do have a lot of secondary source material for climate change topics... But I think the key policy here is WP:DUE. Either way, I do agree with you that citing Carbon Brief was not a great choice. For now I've made it like this now: In theory, the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved through a combination of emission cuts and carbon dioxide removal. However, the feasibility of the required scale of carbon dioxide removal, as well as the most suitable methods for carbon dioxide removal are under debate. and using that journal article as a ref for now: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.

I think the section that is now "Rationale" needs further work, as it jumps around a bit and is also repetitive. There is probably room for condensing it. But the more important sections, in my opinion, are those that follow, i.e. those on methods, problem areas and risks. The "rationale" is really just the theory but the content further down in the article puts meat to the bones.

Is your book already out and do you have previous publications on the topic of SRM? If you want to cite from them, that is OK but you would have to declare your potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI) for adding content from your own work. EMsmile (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know we don’t know the risk from SRM because there have not been enough experiments- is that right?

And we don’t know the risk of going over a tipping point if there is too much CO2 with or without SRM?

So I am confused why we need the text in green . Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think RPeel's edit was good. Regarding EMSsmile's rationale for removing it:

• The citations given are not "4 low-quality primary sources." At least two are clearly secondary sources. I'm curious how you decided that "Assessing Carbon Capture: Public Policy, Science, and Societal Need", which has "Review Paper" at the top of it, is a primary source. I haven't thoroughly assessed all four citations but from what I can assess in a few minutes, I see many more indicators of suitability than unsuitability as Wikipedia sources. I'd really like to understand your thinking here.
• We do not have a policy against adding a high number of refs to one sentence. WP:Overcite is an essay, not a policy or guideline. If you think a sentence has three more citations than it should have, the solution per WP:PRESERVE is to remove three citations, not to remove the sentence. WP:PRESERVE is policy.
• WP:Due weight is of course policy, but in this case I would argue that in this case it favors ensuring that all significant viewpoints are included. NPOV requires including minority points of view unless they are tiny minority points of view.
• Nowhere does policy state that articles should fit neatly together with other articles and avoid overlap. Overlap between articles is normal.

The text wasn't perfect but it's certainly something we can start with. It would be a shame to lose the part about the trajectory after net zero. I see no reason this article should mention that there is a debate about what methods of CDR are most suitable. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Chidgk1 that the text in green (above) is not actually needed in this article as it digresses into other topic areas. However, it was my compromise proposal as the previous text on this sub-topic was even longer (too long in my opinion). This was the text that had previously been added and which I had objected to: However, serious challenges to the notion that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on the scale needed to achieve net zero goals exist. Additionally, the various climate modelling efforts undertaken to determine the likely trajectory of global average temperatures after net zero concede that, as with the case in all such model studies, their results are only indications based on what are admittedly incomplete data inputs, such that "substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of emissions is a feature of a minority of the assessed models and thus cannot be ruled out purely on the basis of models."

That sentence that starts with "additionally" is way too long and confusing. I also see very low source-text integrity for some of the refs. For example, the ref 1 (which I chose to keep), does not talk about these things (explicitly) but does (mainly) talk about different methods for CDR. Which is why I chose to formulate the sentence like this "the most suitable methods for carbon dioxide removal are under debate" if we want to use that ref. But I am also happy to strike out that sentence.

User RPeel then proposed this wording: Additionally, the feasibility of the required scale of carbon dioxide removal that this strategy requires is hotly debated. Likewise, the assumption that net zero would bring about a near immediate stabilization of global average temperatures is based on climate modeling recognized to be based on idealized conditions and incomplete data. These conditions form part of the case for exploring SRM as a secondary strategy to confront warming.. I could not find where the refs said "hotly debated" and think this is editorialising. Ref 1 didn't say that.

By the way, the references from Frontiers come up in yellow with the tool that checks references (rightly or wrongly). Yellow means: "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements".

Regarding Chidgk1's question: "As far as I know we don’t know the risk from SRM because there have not been enough experiments- is that right?" This is not right. The risks are pretty much known even before doing large-scale experiments. See the content of the article further down that talks about technical challenges and risks. Many of the risks relate to governance issues as well. EMsmile (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding text-source integrity, I can see an argument for low text-source integrity with the first paper (Sekera) . I see high text-source integrity with the other three citations. As for sources coming up in yellow when you use a tool, the tool documentation that you linked to says yellow means “This is where using your brain matters the most as these sources are generally the least problematic and may not even be problematic at all. This is mostly a double-check this reminder, rather than a probably should be removed warning.” Yet you’re using it as a justfication for removal.

I am reminded of the essay Wikipedia:Bring me a rock.

I appreciate your appreciation for higher-quality sources but the first point Rpeel was trying to make – i.e. that it’s questionable whether humanity will get to net zero by 2050– is so anodyne and obvious that it barely needs a citation at all. The second point – that net zero by 2050 might not be enough to stabilize the climate – disappeared altogether in your proposed compromise. I see no reason to remove these points nor to compromise on them. I agree the original wording was too long and technical but these are reasons to copyedit it - or to simply leave it as-is if you don't want to copyedit it yourself. They are not reasons to erase entire concepts.

Here’s how I’d reword Rpeel’s contributions. I'm sure this too is imperfect. We can improve on it:

However, serious questions have been raised on whether it is feasible to do carbon dioxide removal (CDR) at the very large scales needed to achieve net zero goals. Additionally, a minority of climate models indicate that substantial warming could continue after the goal of net zero emissions is achieved. These uncertainties form part of the case for exploring SRM as a secondary strategy to confront warming.

I've put a variation of the above text in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your new text proposal, it's so much better. I like your new paragraph so much that I've moved it to the start of the section on "rationale". I think it sets the scene nicely. I still think the refs used here are not the greatest (if it was the climate change article we would not accept them, or would we?). Also, there are bound to be higher quality refs available for these kinds of general statements, probably the IPCC reports. But I don't have time/energy to look, and if you say these refs are suitable and sufficient then fine. I've done a bit more work on the entire section on "rationale", trying to improve the logical flow and doing some copy editing. I see some repetition and unsourced content further down below in the section. This could be straightened out. EMsmile (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Re if it was the climate change article we would not accept them, or would we? I don't have time to fully answer this question, but I'll point out that questions of source reliability are always context-dependent. I.e. a source that is not good enough in one context can be fine in another context. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reworked advocacy section a bit

I've just reworked the advocacy section a bit. For the content on Germany's position I added two quotes from the report in order to stay closer to what the source says. I've also moved some content from the advocacy section to other (new) sections so that it's easier to follow the logical flow. The second part of the table of content now looks like this:

• Advocacy
• Opposition to deployment and research
• Funding (with two sub-sections: one on research and one on deployment; or maybe it would be better if "deployment" became a main level heading on its own?). EMsmile (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Reworked structure

I've just reworked the structure to stay closer to what the IPCC reports say which do not put the space-based methods on the same level as SAI. Space-based methods really is "pie in the sky" type of fundamental research, so I have put that under "other", and moved the atmospheric methods up a level to become a main level heading. I've also made this a bit clearer in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Space-based methods really is "pie in the sky"!

Ha ha very good Chidgk1 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It is for this reason that I removed the reference to space-based and surface methods from the introductory short description and shortened the former. Such detail can go into the space-based articles. TERSEYES (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi TERSEYES, I think the ground based and space based methods ought to be mentioned in the lead. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, not an "introduction". The lead is not yet overly long so we do have space to mention that SRM is not just SAI but includes other things as well. I do agree that the space-based content in the main text was too long. But did you delete all that text or move it? I think it was good text and should not be fully deleted but rather moved to the right sub-article. I am referring to this edit of yours. EMsmile (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've now integrated the content that you had deleted into Space mirror (climate engineering). EMsmile (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that text into the other article. I meant to and but became distracted.

Surface and space based methods are very fringe. Is the lead (and you are right, it is a summary) has space, I can think of several more importance aspects of SRM than these. TERSEYES (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think indeed the lead should be expanded a bit. It's currently 288 words long. There is no firm guidance (but see WP:LEADLENGTH). From my experience, 400 words is a good lead length for an article of this size. The lead should only summarise content from the main text, not contain new/unique text. EMsmile (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

NUA advocacy

There's been some recent edit wars over content relating to the SRM non use agreement. Just a reminder: Wikipedia isn't the place for PR. Keep edits neutral, keep articles balanced, don't edit in the interests of clients, and avoid giving undue weight. Thanks. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Andrewjlockley, welcome back to Wikipedia and this article. I see from the edit history that you had created this article on SRM and worked on it a lot around 2009 but not in recent years, so welcome back. I know about WP:DUE of course, and as you can imagine, the space given to the non use agreement can be a matter of debate (does not need to be regarded as an edit war!). User:Thisredrock recently called it "Removed an extraneous reference to a small but vocal anti-SRM campaign, which belongs further down thee article, not in the introduction". In which sense is it "small" when so many people have signed it? For comparison, there is a new section that was recently added about a sign-on letter that goes in the other direction and that got quite some space and detail dedicated to it:

++++++

Two sign-on letters in 2023 from scientists and other experts have called for expanded "responsible SRM research". One wants to "objectively evaluate the potential for SRM to reduce climate risks and impacts, to understand and minimize the risks of SRM approaches, and to identify the information required for governance". It was endorsed by "more than 110 physical and biological scientists studying climate and climate impacts about the role of physical sciences research." Another called for "balance in research and assessment of solar radiation modification" and was endorsed by about 150 experts, mostly scientists.

++++++++

So I think the space that we had for the non-use agreement prior to deletion was entirely justified and not over the top:

++++++++

=== Proposed international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering ===

In 2022, a dozen academics launched a campaign for national policies of "no public funding, no outdoor experiments, no patents, no deployment, and no support in international institutions... including in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." The proponents call this an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering.

The advocates’ core argument is that, because SRM would be global in effect and some countries are much more powerful than others, it is “not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system.” They therefore oppose the “normalization” of SRM and call on countries, intergovernmental organizations, and others to adopt the proposal’s five elements.

On the day that the academic article was published, the authors also launched a campaign calling for others to endorse the proposal. Their open letter emphasized, in addition to the governance challenges, that SRM’s risks are “poorly understood and can never be fully known” and that its potential would threaten commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As of December 2024, nearly 540 academics and 60 advocacy organizations have endorsed the proposal. Among the latter is Climate Action Network, itself a coalition of more than 1900 political organizations. The position from Climate Action Network included a footnote that excluded the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

+++++++++

Overall, the SRM article is not so long that we'd have to be worried about excessive bloat (page size only 33 kB). Do you perhaps object to the existence of this non-use agreement and want to therefore downplay its importance?

And I do think it would also be correct to mention it in the lead. It could be just one sentence. But the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. It is not yet too long (281 words). A mention in the lead is not PR, it is simply stating facts that this initiative exists. Just like we also mention other NGOs in the articles that are pushing for more research into SRM, not less. Like the The Degrees Initiative in the UK. EMsmile (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any disagreement that the NUA campaign should be covered on this page, just that it doesn't warrant a special place in the summary text and a special section of its own. The push for this special treatment creates additional concerns that text on the NUA is being pushed by an editor who is paid by the organisation that houses the NUA campaign Thisredrock (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's good that you and I agree that the NUA campaign should be mentioned in the main text (I think it also deserves a mention in the lead but OK, I can live with that). Now the question is how it should be mentioned and with how much text: The original text was with three paragraphs, now it's been shrunk down to one. It starts with "a dozen academics" and it omits "As of December 2024, nearly 540 academics and 60 advocacy organizations have endorsed the proposal.". I think this downplays the size/importance of this initiative making is sound like only 12 academics are involved. So I think some (not all) of the deleted text should go back in. I propose that we could condense the previous 3 paragraphs to become line paragraph like this:

"In 2022, a dozen academics launched a campaign for national policies of "no public funding, no outdoor experiments, no patents, no deployment, and no support in international institutions [...]" The proponents call this an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. Their core argument is that, because SRM would be global in effect and some countries are much more powerful than others, it is “not governable in a globally inclusive and just manner within the current international political system.” There is also a campaign calling for others to endorse the proposal. As of December 2024, nearly 540 academics and 60 advocacy organizations have endorsed the proposal. Among the latter is Climate Action Network, itself a coalition of more than 1900 political organizations." EMsmile (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And regarding my situation as a paid editor in this case: I fully understand that this could raise red flags for folks. However, I've been editing Wikipedia now for over a decade; most of my 50,000 or so edits in a volunteer capacity and many in a paid capacity (for various clients). I have no intention to throw overboard my professional judgement for a short term consultancy and to start neglecting Wikipedia editing policies. I've explained on my user page how I handle any potential WP:COI.

But the SRM topic does have the potential to be controversial and for people (anyone) to be somewhat biased. Equally to how someone could be suspicious of me and my intentions, I could also be suspicious of an editor who in real life is a scientist who has done research on SRM in the past. So a certain degree of bias can always be there, based on our professional work and background. We all do our best to keep things neutral and objective for the benefit of our Wikipedia readers so that they can inform themselves. Let's continue this fruitful collaboration. EMsmile (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

EMsmile You should step back. WP policy is clear - it's not a pay-for-edits organisation. You've over stepped the mark. Multiple people have reverted or criticised your paid edits. I'm not wasting my time arguing with a paid editor, who's clearly breached WP norms and editor consensus to push client interests. Let others decide how to handle your client's representation on WP. It's not for you to intervene. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The recently added half sentence of "they currently claim over 500 supporters" is worse than what was there before. "they claim" is not worded in a neutral way; there is no source given for this number; the term "currently" is imprecise and will not age well. Previously we had this which was more accurate and with a source, even if the source is their own website (there is no reason to believe that these numbers would not be correct or not WP:VERIFIABLE): As of December 2024, nearly 540 academics and 60 advocacy organizations have endorsed the proposal.. EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

References

EMsmile, there are some concerns that you are being paid by the organisation behind the Non-Use Agreement, and that this means that you might be making biased edits to promote the Non-Use Agreement, its authors, and its campaigning agenda. You have dismissed these concerned, but I looked back and:

1) On 19 December 2024 you inserted a paragraph about the Non-Use Agreement into the Summary section of the page on solar radiation modification. No other organisations or initiatives were covered in the Summary section there, which otherwise was just introductory text on the topic of SRM itself. I removed your text as being inappropriate for a Summary section and you put an edited paragraph on the Non-Use Agreement straight back in.

Reply: I have already said above that if you insist, I am fine with not mentioning the Non-Use Agreement in the lead. Personally, I think it's important enough to deserve a mention in the lead. But if it's a red flag for you, fine. Leave it out. Or see what others think. Overall, the lead should be made longer (I've mentioned that above as well). EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

2) On 12 August 2024 you created a new section on the solar radiation modification page devoted entirely to the Non-Use Agreement. It consisted of three chunky paragraphs about the NUA. No other initiatives or organisation within the SRM space had more than one paragraph, let alone a bespoke three-paragraph section.

Reply: Yes, point taken, I have already proposed above a compromise which is much shorter and has no dedicated section heading. Please note there was a stand-alone draft article for the NUA in August last year (not created by me). I then merged some content from that stand-alone article to here and placed a redirect instead. I think a stand-alone article for the NUA is not needed. I can't find the draft article anymore now but it existed. EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

3) On 18 November 2024 you changed the text "Some scholars argue that the current international political system..." to "Frank Biermann and other political scientists argue that the current international...". This jumped out because Prof Biermann is one of many people to have made the point in question, and he certainly wasn't the first. But I do note that he is the founder of the Earth System Governance Project, which I understand pays you to edit Wikipedia. Is that correct?

Reply: That is correct, and I've stated this very clearly and transparently on my user profile page. EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgive my directness, but to a naive outsider it appears that you are making edits that are promoting the Non-Use Agreement and the people behind it, while being paid by the organisation behind the campaign. What have I misunderstood?

Reply: I feel that the NUA ought to be mentioned in this Wikipedia article and that it would comply with WP:DUE. Also, if there is criticism of the NUA, with reliable sources, then by all means this should also for sure be included! Just like criticism of e.g. The Degrees Initiative. This gives our readers the full picture and sets it apart from a mere repeat of what organisations write on their websites about themselves... In the interest of transparency, do you get paid (or were you ever paid) to do research on SRM (from your user profile page it seems that yes)? For an outsider it might appear that someone who is doing research on SRM might be rather unhappy about the existence of the NUA and prefer that it's not mentioned in a Wikipedia article on SRM... But let's not speculate. To sum up: I do agree that my initial description of the NUA was too long, and I think it should be possible to agree on a condensed version that we are both happy with (we should also look for some secondary sources that wrote about the NUA - this would be valuable). But I am not happy with being personally attacked and the recent switch to highly aggressive behaviour (not by you, but see below from Andrewjlockley who raised a WP:ANI about this). EMsmile (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thisredrock (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

New paragraph

I see the new proposed paragraph about NUA that has been included in the meantime. I think it's good good (the first sentence is a bit clunky? Does the full name of the journal have to be mentioned?): In 2022, a scientific journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change published "Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement". The authors argued that geoengineering cannot be used in a responsible manner under the current system of international relations, so the only option is for as many governments as possible to make a commitment they would neither deploy such technologies, nor fund research into them, grant intellectual property rights or host such experiments when conducted third parties. In 2024, the same journal had published a commentary from a different group of scientists, which criticized the proposed non-use agreement and argued for a more permissive research framework. (the two refs didn't get copied across to the talk page but they are in the article page).

I personally think it would be interesting for our readers to know something about the size of this initiative (As of December 2024, nearly 540 academics and 60 advocacy organizations have endorsed the proposal. Among the latter is Climate Action Network, itself a coalition of more than 1900 political organizations.) but am also fine if others think this should not be included and that it would read like PR material. However, for comparison the earlier para about the other sign-on letter does give their figures as well. I mean the para starting with "Two sign-on letters in 2023 from scientists and other experts have called for expanded "responsible SRM research"". Should we be consistent and therefore delete the number of academics who signed from that paragraph as well? Or why the different treatment? Is that sign-on letter from 2023 regarded as more important than the NUA from 2022? EMsmile (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

you are conflicted, @EMsmile,the changes you're advocating are to favour your client. This needs to stop. I've already given a cited, recent, number of supporters in the article. Stop agitating for you paymasters. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Criticism of The Degrees Initiative

I'd like to question the recent removal of criticism of The Degrees Initiative in this edit. In the edit summary, User:Matthias Honegger stated: "Deleting this sentence as none of the other organizations in this article is being introduced with such criticisms levelled against them." I think this is not a good justification for deleting it completely. Condensing of this criticism text is fine but outright deletion not (in my opinion). If there are reliable sources that criticise those other orgs then this could also be added over time; so the fact that the other orgs are not critiqued yet is not a reason for deleting. The only good reason for deleting would be if the source given was not reliable. Do we have reason to believe so? The text in question was:

However, the German NGO Geoengineering Monitor has criticized The Degrees Initiative for "being an organisation based in the Global North imposing its research agenda onto the Global South" as well as "normalising and legitimising solar geoengineering as a viable mitigation strategy". They also point out that it is "predominantly funded by foundations run by technology and finance billionaires based in the Global North".

I think the overarching issue is this: SRM is a controversial topic. No doubt about that. The Wikipedia article should explain to our readers where the controversies lie. We are not taking sides or saying who is right and who is wrong. We are simply stating who is doing what, who said what and so forth, keeping WP:DUE in mind.

How about shortening the text in question to this: However, the German NGO Geoengineering Monitor has criticized The Degrees Initiative for "imposing its research agenda onto the Global South" and for being "predominantly funded by foundations run by technology and finance billionaires based in the Global North". EMsmile (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The DEGREES initiative is a philanthropic and philosophical rival to your NUA client EMsmile. You should not be editing this content. You are conflicted. Pls step back, as per previous request.

Can mods look to get this page locked and get

EMsmile put on review? Dealing with shills is a time suck for all. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to @EMsmile pointing out the lack of text covering criticism of other organizations – I took this as a prompt to address an important oversight in the text and inserted just a couple of instances of criticism raised against the non-use campaign (criticism which you were surely well aware of but omitted).

As regards the "Geoengineering Monitor": this is a campaigning organisation expressly set up to oppose geoengineering and as such hardly a reliable source of information. Matthias Honegger (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted much of this, and also shortened the initial mention of the proposal to be more WP:DUE. Please review WP:WEASEL if you cannot see why language like "eminent governance scholars" does not belong on Wikipedia. It's also best to avoid citing anything like Medium posts if at all possible. In this case, the author appears to be a scientist, which would make it more justifiable, but the same scientist also contributed to the commentary piece in an actual scientific journal, which appears to make the Medium post completely unnecessary. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

could you clarify who's edits you've reverted please Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@InformationToKnowledge: what's your opinion on this reference: https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/the-degrees-initiative Would you regard it to be OK as a source or not reliable? Given that criticism towards SRM research often comes from CSOs, I would regard that source to be permissible in this case (although not great) but am curious what you think. I had included two of their sentences where they criticise The Degrees Initiative but that has now been deleted in this edit by User:Matthias Honegger. NB to all: I am not singling out The Degrees Initiative. I am interested to explain anyone's criticism of any concept/approach/organisation if the source meets WP criteria of WP:RS. EMsmile (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

pls step back @EMsmile. You have no business advocating for changes to this page, especially not while there's an ongoing review into your conduct. Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI report opened

I've reported the shill here. https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-neutral_paid_editor Feel free to review / comment / contribute. Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling a user a "shill" violates WP:NPA, I would strongly advise you retract that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

per WP own definition "a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organization, or have been paid to do so." this article is unambiguously subject to a shilling attack. The commercial relationship is plainly stated, but is - crucially - opaque to readers, unless they track each specific edit building the page and visit the user tp to check the credentials for each user. Such forensics are plainly implausible for ordinary readers-hence the rules. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As an update: @EMsmile agreed to not edit content on this page regarding the campaign for the Non-use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. TERSEYES (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Modest reorganization of impacts / effects

As I work through the document, I found the "technical risks" section to broad. I split this into "Climatic and environmental effects" and "Scientific risks and uncertainties". Both need further work, especially the former. I also moved the subsections on termination shock and deployment length to "Governance and policy issues", which is a better place (although neither location is perfect). TERSEYES (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the major changes you made yesterday. Article is now much clearer for the reader IMO. A shame it's been defaced with an unsightly tag, but we can get that removed in a few months (or possibly sooner) unless someone makes a case that the article has NPOV issues in either direction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

COI tag?

Hello, User:Hemiauchenia, I see you have added the COI maintenance tag on this article. I think I agree with your step. However, what would have to be done in order for the tag to be removed? And should a kind of permanent notification be placed at the top of this talk page? I am not very familiar with these processes but I think I've seen this on other talk pages every now and again. Would you say that some of the main editors of this article still ought to disclose their conflict of interest (if they have any)? Were you referring to me or the other editors? I think my COI has been discussed at great length in the AN/I thread; and is also shown on my profile page. Did you mean that AN/I thread (permalink here) when you said "As per the unspeakable site" in your edit summary? EMsmile (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the other editors who I placed COI tags on their talk pages. Off-wiki evidence suggests that the editors I have tagged are involved (Redacted), and have not properly disclosed their COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Should you tell us which editors might have a COI so I can check what changes they made to this article and make sure it has a neutral point of view? If not I suppose I should simply read it and check for bias without knowing who wrote what as that way I would be more independent. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The editors I am accusing of have a COI are Thisredrock, TERSEYES and Matthias Honegger. The first two have made significantly more edits to the article than Honegger, so you should prioritize their edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia Thanks. I won’t comment on whether or not they have a COI or if they had whether they should have made the edits, but will just ponder the text and sources and see whether I think it has a neutral point of view. Might take me a while as I don’t know the subject well so will need to read around, but if I have not replied within a week feel free to chase me up. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"among environmentalists"?

There is a sentence in the lead that goes like this (bolding added by me): For these reasons and more, SRM is often a contested topic among environmentalists.. My proposal is to remove "among environmentalists" as that is overly narrow and ill-defined (what exactly is an environmentalist? Am I one?). I think the sentence could simply be: For these reasons and more, SRM is often a contested topic.. Or if you think it needs to be spelled out then it could become: For these reasons and more, SRM is often a contested topic among academics, policy makers and civil society organizations.. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Good call, I think the simpler formulation "For these reasons and more, SRM is often a contested topic" is right Thisredrock (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Who is funding SRM advocacy or research

(I've moved this segment from earlier on the talk page, and added a section heading, to make it easier to follow it and to see latest additions at the bottom of the talk page - as per my housekeeping suggestion from yesterday. ) EMsmile (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Without a shadow of a doubt, similar to CDR, some SRM advocacy is funded by pro polluters. AR6 didn't mention that from what I could see. But would agree with including this if a good source is found. Though equally, IMO as of 2024 the clear majority of folks who support more SRM research are good faith. Looking forward to seeing how the good ESG scientists see this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Contrary to understandable speculation, there is no advocacy for using SRM besides fringe actors such as Make Sunsets and no known funding or advocacy of SRM research from fossil fuel interests. A moment's investigation of claims that there is such funding or advocacy reveals misrepresentation. For example, an activist group issued a report revealing 'the early, ongoing, and often surprising role of the fossil fuel industry in developing, patenting, and promoting key geoengineering technologies.' However, its evidence relied almost entirely on including carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in geoengineering, as well as a few scattered pro-SRM statements made by opponents of climate action over the last 15 years. In other words, 'big, if true.' And I would agree to include this if a good source is found. TERSEYES (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no speculation on my part buddy. This topic space is too complex to be understood by "A moment's investigation". Let me try to tease out the subtlies here. As we'd already agreed, there's been little public advocacy for the use of SRM. Yet's there's been abundant back-room advocacy for research and sometimes use. In the 'idea factories' (Universities) , the corridors of power (National & Multilateral government) and even Industry. I know this first hand; as mentioned above I was recently at UN HQ. Regardless this is all undeniably proved by quality WP:RS - just not the sort I'd see as suitable for use in our article due to accessibility issues, the way they cover the overall context , etc.

You may have been correct if you'd said there's "no widely known funding or advocacy of SRM research from fossil fuel interests". But it's well known by insiders and covered in WP:RS. For example, about a quarter of chapter 7 in The New Climate War is all about fossil fules advocacy of SRM, from former ExxonMobil CEO & Trump secretary of state Rex "climate change is just an engineering problem" Tillerson to various high profile pet scientists. Chapter 7 has 90 sources, one of them being The fossil fuel industry's invisible colonization of academia. The source revealed how fossil fuel interests dominates major US Universities with hundreds of millions worth fundings. The two authors have impecabble credentials for such statements - they used to hold positions at Harvard & Standford (both formerly major centres of SRM research) and have since moved on to be trusted advisors on climate change to US Federal government and the EU.

This is not to deny that the anti SRM crowd don't make equally incorrect claims, such as saying SRM originated from fossil fuel industry. It originated (and is increasingly supported by) good faith scientists who only want what's best for humanity and the world. But it's equally true that fossil fuel interests had for years attempted to use SRM as a way to dampen emission reduction efforts. Granted, some of those same fossil fuel funders later pivoted to throwing most types of SRM scientist under a bus in favour of Carbon Capture tech, which is more politically acceptable to their compromised IPCC allies - as said, this is a complex topic space, not easy to understand at first glance.FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these inputs, very interesting! I just wanted to add that when it comes to the question of "who is funding SRM research currently?" I can highly recommend this paper by Surprise and Sapinski: Surprise, Kevin; Sapinski, Jp (2023). "Whose climate intervention? Solar geoengineering, fractions of capital, and hegemonic strategy". Capital & Class. 47 (4): 539–564. doi:10.1177/03098168221114386. ISSN 0309-8168. It is already cited in the article with this sentence: A study from 2022 investigated where the funding for SRM research came from globally concluded there are "close ties to mostly US financial and technological capital as well as a number of billionaire philanthropists". The article is behind a paywall but it can be accessed through academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/89265578/Whose_climate_intervention_Solar_geoengineering_fractions_of_capital_and_hegemonic_strategy

I think there could probably be more content that could be used from that paper, to explain where the funding for SRM research is coming from and why.

Housekeeping proposal: I think we should move my post and the three posts before mine into a new section that we move to the bottom of this talk page. As otherwise readers have to jump to the start and to the end of the talk page to see recent posts. We could call that section "Funders of SRM research and advocacy". EMsmile (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Truly outstanding analyses in that source EMsmile! Granted, it's already a little dated. The partial backlash against ESG investments and especially the growing power of the Dark Gothic MAGA tech-bro sub faction make the capitalist state mediated compromise envisaged in the source seem a little optimistic. But for our purposes it's great. I'd not wanted prominent mention of FF's funding role before as I didn't know a source that while admitting the fossil fuel lobby were historically major funders, covers the fact that's no longer true. Your source handles that almost perfectly: fossil fuel interests and climate denial organizations are now largely absent from SG policy-planning, while prominent criticism of the technology continues to link it to the fossil fuel industry etc. So now in favour of a brief mention of FF funding & also of your housekeeping proposal. Suggest it may be good to wait a week or so in case editor TERSEYES or others object. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Legality of deployment under existing national laws?

The article does not explain why an American company deployed (or pretended to deploy) SRM from outside their own country. Perhaps it was merely that balloons are cheaper in Mexico rather than anything to do with US law prohibiting deployment.

Also I have not yet been able to find out whether any countries have made deployment a crime. https://www.ciel.org/news/solar-radiation-modification-eu-must-reject-solar-geoengineering-and-support-non-use-approach/ seems to claim it might be against EU law because of treaties the EU has signed - but perhaps no country has ever tested anything in court. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)