The European Union’s (EU) Scientific Advice Mechanism has recommended the establishment of a global governance regime to regulate Solar Radiation Management (SRM), a group of controversial geoengineering technologies aimed at temporarily cooling the planet. These technologies include methods such as injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or using mirrors to reflect sunlight.
The recommendations represent the EU’s first formal scientific stance on SRM, emphasizing that these technologies do not address the root causes of climate change—namely greenhouse gas emissions—and carry significant risks and uncertainties.
SRM technologies are seen as a potentially fast and inexpensive way to counteract extreme heat but come with considerable ecological and economic risks. These include disruptions to rainfall patterns, impacts on ecosystems, and risks to food and solar energy production.
The EU’s scientific advisors have warned against the deployment, aligning with Europe’s precautionary principles and advocating for an EU-wide moratorium on SRM. Instead, they urge prioritization of emission reductions and climate adaptation strategies to address global warming.
EU Advisors Urge Global Action to Govern Risks of Solar Radiation Management Technologies
Despite these risks, SRM is gaining attention as a potential solution to avoid surpassing the critical 1.5°C warming threshold. Some companies have already begun marketing “cooling credits” tied to SRM technologies, which the advisors have strongly opposed.
They recommend banning such credits from international climate agreements and stress the need for a robust governance framework to prevent the uncontrolled development and deployment of SRM technologies.
Currently, there is no legally binding international framework to regulate SRM, though a non-binding moratorium was established in 2010 under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
The EU’s scientific advisors propose that the union should lead efforts to create a global governance system that enforces the non-deployment of SRM, while allowing limited, strictly regulated outdoor research. Such research should meet ethical guidelines, avoid diverting funds from broader climate initiatives, and be reassessed periodically.
While proponents of SRM research argue that publicly funded studies are essential to guide informed decision-making and global discussions, critics caution against the risks of normalizing these technologies.
Allowing even small-scale outdoor testing, they argue, could create a “slippery slope” toward eventual large-scale deployment. Concerns about the unknown long-term impacts of SRM remain a significant barrier to its acceptance.
The recommendations call for a fundamental shift in the international approach to SRM, urging the EU to champion a global norm against its use. Experts like Aarti Gupta stress the need to entirely exclude SRM from climate strategies, labeling it as too risky to consider.
The debate highlights the tension between researching SRM to better understand its implications and avoiding actions that might inadvertently pave the way for its deployment.
