Executive Summary
This report from Johns Hopkins APL examines climate intervention (geoengineering) methods, focusing on their national security implications and governance. It assesses risks associated with Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques, highlighting potential geopolitical instability and the need for robust international regulation. The authors propose principles and recommendations to integrate national security considerations into future climate intervention governance frameworks.
Why It Matters
This document is crucial for defense and geopolitical analysts as it directly addresses the national security implications of climate intervention technologies, including potential for unilateral deployment, geopolitical instability, and the need for intelligence monitoring and infrastructure protection.
Key Takeaways
- Unilateral deployment of climate intervention by any nation poses significant risks to global and national security, potentially altering environments and international relations.
- Current international and domestic governance frameworks for climate intervention are insufficient, necessitating new principles and regulations that integrate national security considerations.
- The US Intelligence Community and defense agencies must actively monitor climate intervention activities and protect related infrastructure due to potential dependencies and termination risks.
- Climate intervention methods, particularly SRM, carry significant termination risks and could lead to dangerous dependencies if not managed carefully.
- The report emphasizes the need for international collaboration, transparency, and rigorous assessment of climate intervention methods, including their national security equities.
Strategic Relevance
The strategic relevance lies in understanding how emerging climate intervention technologies could reshape geopolitical landscapes, create new security challenges, and necessitate a re-evaluation of national defense and intelligence priorities. It highlights the potential for climate intervention to become a tool of statecraft or a source of conflict, requiring proactive governance and monitoring.