The American Meteorological Society (AMS) drafted a statement describing its stance on geoengineering. While the draft seemed to have a negative stance toward geoengineering, saying, “Exploration of geoengineering strategies also creates potential risks. Developing any new capacity will require resources, possibly drawn from more productive uses. The possibility of quick and seemingly inexpensive geoengineering fixes could distract the public and policy makers from crtically needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build society’s capacity to deal with unavoidable climate impacts.” From this, it seems that the AMS believes research into geoengineering is a distraction from looking into solutions that are viable, such as adaptation and mitigation. From a policy standpoint, the AMS draft statement points out that the side effects are potentially devastating, and will vary regionally. Because of the variation in consequences, it is ethically wrong to utilize geoengineering.

The take home message for policy makers from the AMS statement is that “transparency and international cooperation” is needed as well as “restrictions on reckless efforts to manipulate the climate system.” They recommend that policy options be further developed to achieve this end. Despite the backdrop of disapproval of geoengineering, the AMS also recommends further research into the environmental effects, along with research into the “historical, ethical, legal, political, and societal aspects of the geoengineering issues.”