There is broad literature on ethical considerations around SRM, mainly stemming from philosophy or political theory, and mainly focused on SAI . There is concern that publicly debating, researching and potentially deploying SAI could involve a 'moral hazard', with potential to obstruct ongoing and future mitigation efforts , while empirical evidence is limited and mostly at the individual, not societal, level . There is low agreement whether research and outdoors experimentation will create a 'slippery slope' towards eventual deployment, leading to a lock-in to long-term SRM, or can be effectively regulated at a later stage to avoid undesirable outcomes . Regarding potential deployment of SRM, procedural, distributive and recognitional conceptions of justice are being explored . With the SRM research community's increasing focus on distributional impacts of SAI, researchers have started more explicitly considering inequality in participation and inclusion of vulnerable countries and marginalised social groups , including considering stopping research . There is recognition that SRM research has been conducted predominantly by a relatively small number of experts in the Global North, and that more can be done to enable participation from diverse peoples and geographies in setting research agendas and research governance priorities, and undertaking research, with initial efforts to this effect , noting unequal power relations in participation could influence SRM research governance and potential implications for policy 
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report