"Geoengineering” refers to technologies that people might use to intentionally alter the planet’s climate system to address the threat of global warming. One of the most frequently discussed approaches is solar geoengineering – blocking some of the sun’s energy by, for example, injecting tiny particles into the atmosphere. But solar geoengineering is controversial. Some experts argue that it is a relatively cheap and quick fix for rising temperatures, the most pressing aspect of climate change. But critics point to potential negative side effects that could result from manipulating the climate in this way.

The COVID-19 pandemic has provided us with a real-world planetary case study in crunch time decision making when
any speculative solution from unproven medication to high-tech gene editing techniques, has a chance to capture people’s attention. Similarly, climate change is challenging the communities around the world with unprecedented disasters, forcing decision makers to desperately look for a solution. The experience of solution-driven policy making during the global pandemic can guide policy makers in dealing with global climate crisis.

In January 2018 the University of Manchester, in collaboration with MCAA, launched a survey on the practices and attitudes in higher education institutions with regard to displaced students and academics. The aim of the survey was to identify the best practices to integrate displaced students and academics into higher education institutions. I was part of the research team looking into the findings of the survey.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. In recent years and in the face of unprecedented changes in the climate system, some previously unknown and risky solutions have been proposed to put a halt to the chain of climate disasters, or at least to slow down the speed of their onslaught. These methods, lumped under the heading of geoengineering, aim to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures, and thus on sea-level rise.

Focusing on mitigating carbon emissions over safe and regulated carbon dioxide removal (CDR) risks
undermining inclusiveness in the quest for climate-change solutions. Developing countries with low carbon footprints are crucial contributors to CDR.

From the U.S. travel ban to the rise of anti-immigrant populists in Europe, politicians often decry migration in times of moral and economic crisis. Controversies can easily preclude a balanced understanding of what migration means – not only for immigrants and their new societies, but also for the places migrants leave behind.