Summary
- Worsening climate change impacts are creating greater risks, particularly for the most vulnerable nations and communities.
- Some scientists, civil societies and policymakers are now calling to better understand the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering (the deliberate large-scale reflection of sunlight) as a means to rapidly cool the planet, stave off some of the impacts of climate change and buy time to scale up mitigation, adaptation and carbon dioxide removal.
- Solar geoengineering research and governance are complex, fragmented and asymmetric. The field is currently influenced by Global North actors, institutions and financing.
- Across several major powers and international forums, the growing momentum in solar geoengineering technologies, assessments, and research and development is raising urgent ethical, justice and human and environmental rights issues that need to be addressed.
- Intergovernmental bodies need to engage in this space. UNFCCC, as an important body in climate governance, will play a key role in shaping governance for solar radiation modification (SRM). Integrating perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders will require focused capacity-building efforts across countries, communities and actors.
Introduction
As global warming and climate change accelerate, there is increasing interest in solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM). SRM refers to large-scale, intentional approaches to increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into space in order to rapidly cool the planet. This can be achieved, for example, by injecting reflective particles into the upper atmosphere, or increasing the albedo of low-lying marine clouds.1 Some see such direct interventions into the global climate system as potential complements to existing climate response strategies. Others see them as dangerous distractions that could further exacerbate global inequities and undermine the need for evermore ambitious climate action.2 3 Regardless, the growing attention around SRM raises questions of climate justice, global governance and ethical responsibility, making it particularly relevant for international forums like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Thus far, SRM has never been on the official agenda of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) meetings. The reluctance of the UNFCCC to engage on this topic leaves a gap in how governance for SRM can be built. However, its growing prominence in other UN bodies (articulated in further sections), as well as in side-events and informal discussions at previous COPs, suggests that it is only a matter of time before the international community has to confront this issue head-on at the UNFCCC. The upcoming COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, could offer an opportunity to jumpstart a discussion on SRM within the context of global climate governance.
This essay explores the state of research and governance surrounding SRM, where SRM may fit at the UNFCCC and COP29, and what steps are necessary to ensure that future SRM decision-frameworks are designed to ensure that justice and inclusion are at the center of discussions on this subject.
SRM and the climate response portfolio
The climate response portfolio traditionally focuses on mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas or GHG emissions), adaptation (preparing societies for climate impacts) and now carbon dioxide removal (removing legacy emissions from the atmosphere). Importantly, SRM may offer an avenue to potentially alleviate some of the worst impacts of climate change that emissions reductions and adaptation cannot address. However, it does not fix the root cause of climate change - rising GHG concentrations - and poses its own potential risks to ecosystems and vulnerable communities. These complexities require well-constructed research and governance frameworks to better understand SRM’s physical and social impacts ahead of decisions about its use.
It is essential to acknowledge that SRM can only be considered as a potential complement to mitigation and adaptation efforts and recognised for its unique risks and uncertainties. The core strategies of reducing emissions and building resilience to growing climate impacts must continue to be prioritised. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledges SRM’s potential to offset global temperature rise, but warns of ‘substantial residual climate change or overcompensating change’ at regional and seasonal scales.4 Therefore, the risks and potential benefits associated with SRM necessitate that deliberations about its research and potential future deployment take into account not only the science but also the ethical, social and geopolitical consequences.
The state of SRM research and governance
The research landscape for SRM is still in its early stages, but it is rapidly expanding in funding and institutional arrangements. The technical aspects associated with the deployment of SRM technologies, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB), are not particularly resource-constrained for their development – they are inexpensive, scalable and quick to deploy compared to other climate technologies.5 However, this combination of technical feasibility and low cost has raised concerns about the potential for premature or unilateral deployment before a global governance framework is in place.
Universities, research institutions and even private companies have begun exploring the technical feasibility of SRM technologies, and some are starting to attempt small-scale experiments. While elements of SRM governance exist within various multilateral bodies, comprehensive oversight is still lacking. This fragmented approach creates a dangerous vacuum, leaving the door open for potential exploitation by rogue actors or private entities operating without sufficient regulation.
For example, in 2022, the US-based startup, Make Sunsets,6 conducted unauthorised sulfate aerosol releases in Mexico via balloons, sparking outrage and prompting the Mexican government to call for a ban on further geoengineering activities within its borders. Similarly, an Israeli-American startup, Stardust Solutions,7 has initiated a for-profit plan to test and deploy its own cocktail of reflective particles into the atmosphere, despite the lack of understanding of the technology’s risks and the absence of a global agreement around its use. Additionally, an MCB experiment off the coast of California was quickly shuttered by local governments soon after its launch in May 2024,8 and a small-scale, high-altitude experiment out of Harvard University was also canceled earlier this year. As other private philanthropies, like the Quadrature Climate Foundation9 and the Simons Foundation, inject tens of millions of dollars into the SRM research space, there is an urgent need for governance mechanisms that can prevent unilateral actions, ensure accountability and protect communities.
Beyond the private sector, several governments – mostly in the Global North – are accelerating their own efforts to investigate SRM. The United States put forth a research agenda and is funding research into the stratosphere. Australia has been conducting MCB experiments in an effort to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Last year, the European Union called for more stringent risk analysis of SRM and continues funding studies into ethics, perceptions and social science elements related to future SRM decision-making. The United Kingdom, through its Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), issued a call for proposals to test ‘small-scale’ outdoor SRM experiments, committing an unprecedented USD 75 million10 – the single largest public investment into SRM research to date. While some of these efforts involve important governance strides and more engagement with the Global South (e.g. ARIA), others are far more constrained.
Efforts to increase Global South participation in SRM research and governance must also be acknowledged, though the level of participation is lagging far behind Global North institutions and is largely centred on India and China (China is currently not investing any further in their climate impacts-driven research into SRM). Since 2018, the Degrees Initiative, a UK-based charity, has been investing in climate modeling and assessment studies in 22 Global South countries. During this period, over 150 climate researchers have had the opportunity to engage with Global North collaborators to research questions relevant to their local and regional climates. In 2024, The Degrees Initiative provided a new funding stream that added socio-political dimensions to SRM research in the Global South. Their work is an attempt to fill some of the resource gaps that exist within the Global South and to actively engage in SRM research while providing new platforms for Global South scientists to build local capacity to contend with SRM challenges. This is a vital step in allowing new viewpoints to develop and percolate towards SRM decision-making driven by the Global South.
These activities signify that the frameworks currently in place for governing SRM are insufficient to ensure just, inclusive and equitable decision-making. Without robust international mechanisms, the potential for exploitation, misuse and unequal impacts on vulnerable communities remains high.
Global North vs. South dynamics in SRM deliberations
In the absence of effective, comprehensive governance, SRM could inadvertently exacerbate the very global inequalities it is intended to mitigate, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities and nations, especially in the Global South. While the Global North is not actively pushing for SRM technologies, many of the key deliberations around SRM are being gate-checked by Global North institutions which control access to crucial information and forums where decisions are made. This creates a situation where Global South countries have limited access to both the scientific information and the decision-making processes that will determine the future of SRM.
Global North-led research institutions, universities and think tanks dominate the discourse, but approach SRM in diverse ways. Some Global North institutions outright reject SRM without meaningful engagement with their Global South counterparts, others frame SRM as a potential stopgap that requires more understanding and a small subset seeks to push SRM forward quickly - often in the name of reducing Global South vulnerabilities without conferring with the Global South first. This lack of consultation and collaboration overlooks the complex and uneven climate, social, ethical and geopolitical impacts – both positive and negative – that SRM may have on the Global South. While these nations are already bearing the brunt of climate change impacts, they may also suffer most from any potential use or non-use of SRM.
Some actors argue that Global South countries may have more urgent climate priorities, such as addressing loss and damage, adaptation and securing climate finance. While these concerns are undeniably critical, it would be a mistake for Global South countries to remain on the sidelines of SRM discussions. The development of SRM technologies will likely continue with or without their input. Without a seat at the table, however, nations risk being excluded from decisions that could have profound impacts on their futures. By actively engaging in SRM governance, Global South countries can ensure that their unique realities, such as vulnerability to climate impacts and development needs, are taken into account, thereby preventing SRM from becoming yet another area where their interests are overshadowed by Global North agendas.
While the Global South as a whole faces significant hurdles when it comes to SRM research and governance, it is also important to recognise the diversity among Global South actors in their engagement with SRM. Countries such as China, India and South Africa have more involvement in SRM research and governance. Given their greater scientific capacity and geopolitical influence, these nations may have different perspectives on SRM compared to smaller or more vulnerable countries. This heterogeneity underscores the need for more holistic, inclusive governance frameworks that account for the wide range of views and ensure that all Global South nations – not just the most influential – have a say in shaping SRM’s future.
Another key issue is the limited capacity of many Global South countries to participate in SRM deliberations. Many communities and nations lack the technical expertise, research infrastructure and financial resources to engage fully in the SRM debate. This lack of access to scientific knowledge and decision-making processes further marginalises their voices in international forums like the UNFCCC and the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA). Building capacity in the Global South through funding, education and knowledge-sharing initiatives will be critical to ensuring that these nations have a seat at the table and can meaningfully contribute towards decisions about SRM.
The need for UNFCCC engagement in SRM governance
The UNFCCC is responsible for coordinating international climate action, making it the natural forum for discussions about SRM governance. However, the UNFCCC has thus far avoided formal engagement with SRM, likely due to the controversies surrounding the technologies and the fear that it may distract from necessary emissions reductions. Despite this reluctance, the UNFCCC will ultimately need to address SRM in the near future, as the field is rapidly gathering momentum in academic, government philanthropic and media circles.
SRM deliberations are already starting in other international forums, such as the UNEA. At the sixth session of UNEA in February 2024, Switzerland (alongside Senegal, Guinea and Monaco) proposed a resolution to establish a scientific expert group on SRM, but ultimately withdrew it after member states failed to reach consensus by the deadline. This is the second time that an SRM resolution has faced this outcome at UNEA, highlighting the deep divisions within the international community on how to approach SRM governance. While some countries, including the US and Saudi Arabia, argued for more research before any governance mechanisms come into place, others, particularly from the Global South, called for a precautionary approach that prioritises understanding the risks of SRM over its potential benefits. In 2023, this diversity of opinion and the need for greater engagement were highlighted by major UN bodies (the Environment Program, the Human Rights Council and the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), which all produced reports assessing the state of SRM science, its human rights implications and its ethical framings.
These developments point to a need to raise the diversity of opinions and ideas shaping SRM governance. Continued lack of UNFCCC engagement will lead to piecemeal, ad-hoc efforts to engage with SRM and uncertainty around where deliberations will take place – if they do so at all. Importantly, the UNFCCC also offers the opportunity to link SRM to broader climate negotiations and frameworks, such as loss and damage, climate finance and global stocktake discussions.
If the UNFCCC continues to sidestep SRM, it risks creating a governance vacuum where private entities or select nations dictate the future of these technologies, leaving vulnerable communities even more marginalised. Engaging through the UNFCCC processes offers the potential to start democratising decision-making on SRM, ensuring that it is considered within the framework of global climate justice rather than as an isolated technocratic solution. Integrating SRM into broader climate negotiations would not only anchor it within the existing commitments to mitigation and adaptation, but it would also ensure that any discussions on deployment prioritise ethical, social and intergenerational considerations. This does not mean that the UNFCCC is the perfect place for global and just governance of SRM, but it is a good place to start.
Why is SRM relevant for COP29?
While SRM is not on the official agenda for COP29, initiating an effort to bring SRM more deliberately into the climate discourse in this context may serve global deliberations on climate action well. SRM discussions are increasing in informal settings at COPs, particularly at side events and country pavilions, highlighting the growing pressure from both advocates and critics to engage with the technology in a more formal, structured way. For example, at COP28 in Dubai, some civil society organisations and academics mobilised against SRM, arguing that discussions around the technology divert attention away from actual mitigation needs. Simultaneously, other organisations and researchers pushed for further research and expanded focus on technologies that may provide symptomatic relief from the worsening climate while dealing with the global addiction to fossil fuels. The majority of those engaging with the topic – both for or against – were largely from Global North institutions.
In this context, COP29 presents a unique opportunity to elevate Global South voices in the SRM debate, voices that have been largely missing from the SRM discourse. The host country, Azerbaijan has made a concerted effort to provide more space for Global South countries and institutions, reducing the number of badges distributed to larger Global North civil society and corporate entities that have traditionally dominated COPs. This shift in representation could be crucial for ensuring that the most vulnerable to climate change (and likely SRM) can engage more effectively and judiciously.
Moreover, the emphasis placed on inclusivity and representation at COPs makes it an ideal forum for advancing discussions on the ethical and governance challenges posed by SRM. At UNEA-6, multiple countries across Africa, Latin America and Asia were vocal in discussions on SRM, expressing diverse opinions and seeking to learn more about these technologies, underscoring the historic and colonial underpinnings of GHG emissions and the negation of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.
What needs to come next?
The UNFCCC, with its established mechanisms for inclusive climate negotiations, can act as a critical platform for ensuring that SRM governance is both democratic and transparent. Alongside other climate-relevant entities, like UNEA and IPCC, UNFCCC can play a vital role in shaping SRM governance. By embedding SRM discussions within the broader climate agenda, the UNFCCC can facilitate the integration of ethical, social and geopolitical considerations, ensuring that SRM is not treated as a siloed technical issue championed by a few institutions and voices from the Global North. Anchoring SRM governance in science and equity can ensure that climate-vulnerable communities are centered in a dialogue founded on justice and fairness.
To that end, the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG) is working towards global, inclusive deliberations that empower the voices of climate-vulnerable communities, particularly from the Global South. DSG is committed to ensuring that SRM governance is built on principles of climate justice, transparency and accountability, and that it engages a broad spectrum of stakeholders – from governments to civil society organisations and grassroots activists. As such, we encourage the UNFCCC to engage on SRM to prevent fragmented governance and ensure that SRM is addressed through equitable, multilateral processes. Although our recommendations below are meant to enhance the UNFCCC’s role in the growing SRM discussions, actualising these recommendations requires sustained dialogue between various party and non-party stakeholders, who can draw their own conclusions of how best to engage on SRM within the context of climate negotiations. In the near term, we recommend:
- Leveraging the UNFCCC’s Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to provide a path forward for SRM governance. SBSTA is responsible for providing scientific advice to governments. It could formally recommend introducing SRM into UNFCCC negotiations, implementing its activities, and providing a structured pathway for research, governance and ethical considerations. As the scientific and technical arm of the UNFCCC, SBSTA could help ground any discussions about SRM in the best available science while taking into account the ethical, social and geopolitical implications of the technology, like other international organisations working on climate change. For instance, the IPCC synthesises global climate science for policymakers, which mirrors how SBSTA could streamline SRM governance discussions. Similarly, within the Montreal Protocol, the Scientific Assessment Panel provides scientific input on ozone depletion, informing decisions on technology adoption. SBSTA could adopt a similar model by facilitating periodic assessments of SRM technologies, ensuring a transparent and accountable process that involves all relevant stakeholders. This would help shape a coherent international response to SRM, mitigating the risks of fragmented or unilateral action.
- Building capacity in the Global South to meaningfully engage with the science and governance implications of SRM at the subnational to international level. Substantial investment in research infrastructure and scientific capacity in the Global South is essential to level the playing field in SRM deliberations. Funding, education and technical support must be directed toward developing countries to empower their participation in present and future SRM discussions. This will ensure that they are not passive recipients of decisions made by others but active contributors to decision-making and the development of decision-making frameworks. The lack of political will surrounding how technical, social and monetary aspects of climate negotiations have been undertaken by the Global North thus far will not result in fair, transparent and inclusive dialogue on SRM.
- Encouraging regional cooperation for SRM research and governance. While global oversight of SRM research is essential, regional cooperation is equally important, especially for addressing the distinct vulnerabilities and governance needs of different regions. The UNFCCC could not only facilitate international collaboration but also strengthen regional discussions and capacity-building in the Global South. Regional bodies such as the African Union, the Caribbean Community and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations are well-positioned to lead SRM governance efforts that account for specific regional challenges. Of importance are climate modeling and assessment efforts, which are needed at the regional level to better understand how climate change and SRM might impact regional geopolitics, such as transboundary water treaties. By fostering these regional efforts, the UNFCCC can help ensure that SRM policies are both globally coherent and locally relevant, reflecting the socioeconomic and political realities of diverse regions. This would provide a crucial counterbalance to unilateral actions, ensuring that SRM governance is more inclusive and regionally grounded.
- Promoting international cooperation by building synergies, and establishing accountability and transparency mechanisms within SRM research and governance frameworks. Strengthening international cooperation is essential for building accountability and transparency mechanisms within SRM research and governance frameworks. The creation of international oversight bodies, though not strictly the domain of UNFCCC, can help guide SRM research and ensure that any potential field tests/deployments are subjected to rigorous ethical review and meet the threshold for international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Montreal Protocol and the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Additionally, fostering synergies across these different institutions would ensure coherence in SRM governance, preventing overlap or conflicting mandates. A specialised task force that works across these bodies could help harmonise guidelines, streamline decision-making and avoid fragmented governance. Global cooperation in this way would mitigate geopolitical challenges, such as unilateral actions by countries or private entities, and ensure that ecosystem and societal risks are properly addressed.
- Expanding stakeholder engagement beyond climate specialists (scientists, technocrats and policymakers). Civil society organisations, grassroots movements and advocacy groups that work directly with vulnerable populations must be included. Organisations focused on human rights, democratic principles and climate justice can articulate the risks and benefits SRM might pose to Indigenous groups and local communities, providing insights into the rights of peoples and nature. To facilitate this broader engagement, the UNFCCC could create a multi-stakeholder platform that brings together diverse actors, ensuring that civil society voices are heard alongside scientific and policy discussions. The UNFCCC already does this, with such platforms as the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action and the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform. A similar platform would allow these SRM stakeholders to address concerns that scientists and policymakers may overlook, such as how the technology might exacerbate existing inequalities or how governance decisions made in the Global North could undermine the sovereignty and self-determination of communities in the Global South.
Conclusion
The growing interest in SRM presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the global community. COP29 offers a critical forum for beginning to address these challenges in a way that is just, inclusive and grounded in climate justice. To ensure that SRM is governed fairly, climate-vulnerable communities and Global South countries must be given the tools and platforms to engage meaningfully in SRM decision-making. In the end, the future of SRM governance will depend on our ability to integrate it into broader climate policy discussions and consider it as part of a comprehensive climate strategy, not just as an isolated solution. Any decisions that are made must prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable. Now is the time for the international community to take decisive action and begin shaping the governance of SRM before it is too late.
Endnotes
[1] The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering. (2024). Definitions. https://sgdeliberation.org/resources/definitions/#solargeo
[2] McLaren, D., & Corry, O. (2021). The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change, 12(3), e707. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.707
[3] Stephens, J. C., & Surprise, K. (2020). The hidden injustices of advancing solar geoengineering research. Global Sustainability, 3, e2. Cambridge Core. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.28
[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. In H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, et al. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001.4
[5] MacMartin, D. G., Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., & Horton, J. B. (2019). Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1668347
[6] Simon, J. (2024). Startups want to cool Earth by reflecting sunlight. There are few rules and big risks. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/21/1244357506/earth-day-solar-geoengineering-climate-make-sunsets-stardust
[7] Freedman, A. (2024). Veteran climate diplomat to advise geoengineering startup. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2024/05/03/geoengineering-firm-climate-diplomat
[8] Der, K. (2024). City Halts Climate Experiment. Alameda Post. https://alamedapost.com/news/city-halts-climate-experiment/
[9] Temple, J. (2024). This London nonprofit is now one of the biggest backers of geoengineering research. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/14/1093778/foundations-are-lining-up-to-fund-geoengineering-research/
[10] Plumer, B. (2024). U.K. to Fund ‘Small-Scale’ Outdoor Geoengineering Tests. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/climate/united-kingdom-geoengineering-research.html
About the authors
Hassaan Sipra
Hassaan Sipra is the Director of Global Engagement at The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG). He is a former consultant and senior researcher from COMSATS University in Islamabad, Pakistan, and he has worked in the climate and environmental protection research and policy domains in several developing countries.
Dr. Shuchi Talati
Dr. Shuchi Talati is a climate technology governance expert and Founder and Executive Director of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG). Prior to DSG, she most recently served as a Presidential Appointee in the Biden-Harris Administration at the US Department of Energy where she was focused on creating just and sustainable frameworks for carbon dioxide removal.
