I look forward to your thoughts and a continued dialogue on these important issues. (14/14)

2) SRM at COP29, Baku, Azerbaijan – SRM360 - my reflections at the end (t.ly/2sz0b)

3) From climate justice to ethical challenges: Charting the path to SRM governance beyond COP29 – The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (t.ly/oHDt7) (13/14)

My discussion drew heavily on recent DSG writings that articulate our ethos, which I invite you to explore:

1) The justice and governance of solar geoengineering: Charting the path at COP29 and beyond – African Policy Research Institute (t.ly/m0rOa) (12/14)

In the future, I hope we can focus less on brashly critiquing intent and more on advancing constructive dialogue. I invite you to collaborate on the basis of the principles DSG has continuously championed. (11/14)

Even in the back end of the podcast, I called for equity, inclusion, and Global South perspectives to ensure robust international frameworks that can guide responsible decision-making around this djinn we are likely gaining the capacity to release from its bottle. (10/14)

At ~26:00, I pointed to the challenges posed by the currently insular SRM research and governance ecosystem and highlighted DSG’s work to diversify it. I stressed that mitigation and carbon removal must remain central to any discussions about SRM. (9/14)

At ~21:00, I shared my own concerns about SRM, and that comparing its risks with climate risks is not apples-to-apples. However, I argued that such evaluations are necessary to guide research and governance frameworks that ensure any decisions about SRM use or non-use are equitable and just. (8/14)

This led into a discussion on the disparities in SRM research and governance between and within the Global North and South, and how these disparities could be addressed to support just and inclusive decision-making. (7/14)

At ~12:00, I emphasized that SRM does not reverse climate change but introduces risks that must be critically evaluated. (6/14)

At ~8:00, reflecting on my many conversations since joining DSG, and at COP, I reiterated the need to prioritize mitigation. (5/14)

‘Alternative’ may not have been the best choice, but recognizing the overarching message I spoke about may be a good choice. If you listen to the rest of the podcast, you’ll find that I consistently made the following points: (4/14)

At ~2:00, I introduced SRM’s conceptual framework; my use of the word ‘alternative’ wasn’t to advocate for SRM but to explain its emergence in the context of insufficient global action on emissions reductions. (3/14)

DSG’s theory of change has always prioritized mitigation while working on applied capacity building and engagement in SRM to enable inclusive, transparent governance – both for research and decision-making around potential deployment. (2/14)

Duncan, clarifying my statements in this podcast, I am surprised by your critique, given your familiarity with DSG’s work and our consistent emphasis on climate justice in all SRM discussions. (1/14)

I look forward to your thoughts and a continued dialogue on these important issues. (14/14)

2) SRM at COP29, Baku, Azerbaijan – SRM360 - my reflections at the end (t.ly/2sz0b)

3) From climate justice to ethical challenges: Charting the path to SRM governance beyond COP29 – The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (t.ly/oHDt7) (13/14)

My discussion drew heavily on recent DSG writings that articulate our ethos, which I invite you to explore:

1) The justice and governance of solar geoengineering: Charting the path at COP29 and beyond – African Policy Research Institute (t.ly/m0rOa) (12/12)

In the future, I hope we can focus less on brashly critiquing intent and more on advancing constructive dialogue. I invite you to collaborate on the basis of the principles DSG has continuously championed. (11/14)