Solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM), refers to a set of technologies that aim to artificially cool the planet by altering Earth’s climate systems. The interest in and push for these technologies is primarily driven by a select group of scientists, organisations, and private funders and investors, particularly in wealthier Global North countries. Despite millions of new funding and increasing lobbying efforts, opposition is growing across political, academic, and civil society spheres. This was also evident during various events at the recent United Nations General Assembly, held in New York.
As one striking example, President Nangolo Mbumba of Namibia, Co-Facilitator of the Pact for the Future, cautioned against the possible “misuse of innovations such as (…) geoengineering,” in his opening remarks at the Summit of the Future.
Additionally, at the Science Summit, government officials convened in one of the panels to discuss pathways for effective and inclusive (restrictive) global governance of solar geoengineering. The panel reflected on recent policy developments, including the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) held earlier this year in Nairobi, Kenya, and its controversial resolution on the potential role of solar geoengineering in addressing the climate crisis. This blog summarizes some of the discussions and dialogues from this panel.
Vanuatu’s Call for Non-Use
Lee-Anne Sackett, Legal Affairs Manager for Vanuatu, opened the dialogue by articulating her country’s strong position against solar geoengineering on behalf of the Honourable Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment and former Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology and Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management. Their stance could not be clearer: a ban or non-use agreement on planetary-scale solar geoengineering technologies is both essential and urgent.
“For Vanuatu, for the Pacific, and for vulnerable nations around the world, solar geoengineering represents an unacceptable risk that we cannot afford to take,” she declared. Sackett highlighted the profound and far-reaching dangers these technologies pose, particularly for island States like Vanuatu, including the potential impacts on agriculture, food security, marine ecosystems, and human health. Moreover, Sackett stressed the severe risks of “termination shock,” referring to the extreme rapid warming if solar geoengineering were abruptly halted, which would be catastrophic for islands that are already struggling to adapt to gradual climate change.
Vanuatu firmly rejects the notion that the Pacific Island countries could serve as testing grounds for such risky technologies: “We in the Pacific are not your guinea pigs. (…) We will not allow ourselves to be subjected to another reckless experiment in planetary engineering.” This sentiment resembles earlier concerns with the promotion of solar geoengineering projects on the African continent, and puts those advocating for further research—especially those claiming to benefit climate-vulnerable countries or “the global poor” (sic)—on increasingly shaky ground.
Sackett further urged countries and vulnerable communities worldwide to unite against solar geoengineering, stating that “We must stand united in our opposition to solar geoengineering and in our support of real climate solutions.” These calls echo Vanuatu’s position at the recent UN Environment Assembly in support of the African countries’ call for the non-use of solar geoengineering.
Critique from African countries
A similar powerful message came from Ms. Hibaa-Haibado Ismael Tani, Third Counsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative to UNEP and UN-Habitat at the Embassy of Djibouti in Kenya. She articulated firm opposition to solar geoengineering in light of recent policy developments, reflecting growing concern over the risks associated with this controversial technology.
For instance, Ms. Tani noted the pioneering decision by the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) in August 2023, where ministers called for a “global governance mechanism for the non-use of solar radiation management.” She emphasised that this decision reflected the strong awareness among African leaders of the substantial risks posed by solar geoengineering, particularly its potential to pose severe and potentially existential risks to Africa and humanity at large. These concerns were, as Ms. Tani explained, formally captured in the AMCEN decision. A call that aligns with the 2022 proposal for a “non-use agreement” that has the support of over 500 scholars from 67 countries and more than 1900 civil society organisations.
In the panel, Ms. Tani explained that the AMCEN decision laid the groundwork for the African group position at the UN Environment Assembly in February 2024. African countries insisted, among others, on acknowledging their call for a global governance mechanism for the non-use of solar geoengineering in the resolution text, a position backed by a coalition of Global South countries, including Colombia, Fiji, Mexico, Pakistan, and Vanuatu.
“What we saw at UNEA-6 was Global South leadership, leadership on non-use, and support from the EU for an approach that does not legitimise solar radiation modification,” Ms. Tani stated. Advocating for a non-use mechanism, she argued, would empower countries to prioritise precaution, transparency, democratic decision-making, and international cooperation in addressing climate change.
Germany’s position
Germany also expressed openness to discussing such a non-use mechanism or agreement. The country’s cross-government position on solar radiation modification was presented by Philipe Maupai, Deputy Head of the Division of Climate and Security at Germany’s Federal Foreign Office.
Maupai emphasised the importance of recognizing existing international rules in governance dialogues on solar geoengineering to ensure that any new governance mechanism aligns with these. In particular, he referred to the Convention on Biological Diversity Decision X/33, paragraph 8(w), adopted in 2010, which states that no climate-related geoengineering activities affecting biodiversity should take place unless specific criteria are met—such as having science-based, global, transparent, and effective control and regulatory mechanisms, and having an adequate scientific basis to justify such actions.
Maupai stressed the importance of leveraging the Convention’s moratorium on geoengineering as a basis for strengthening and operationalizing future governance mechanisms. “We (Germany) believe that this text reflects the common ground we already do have,” he noted, and that such a “non-use provision ensures that those who might take decisions on solar radiation management do think twice and do act in a precautionary manner.”
Way Forward
The discussions at the Science Summit during the 79th United Nations General Assembly reveal the growing global political support for a non-use agreement. The positions underscore a commitment from some of the most climate-vulnerable countries and regions to reject risky technological interventions and stress the urgent need for real climate solutions. These developments represent an important step toward ensuring that the global response to climate change remains rooted in principles of justice, precaution, and multilateralism.
Ms. Tani called for joined forces to achieve a global majority opposing solar geoengineering by “building national and regional commitments towards the establishment of a non-use agreement, led by the Global South (…) to demonstrate that there is no buy-in for experimentation and deployment.”
Moving forward, it will be interesting to observe the strong leadership of like-minded countries advocating for the non-use of solar geoengineering across the globe. It is clear that these efforts offer an opportunity to build momentum toward a global consensus against the use of solar geoengineering.
This blog post was originally published on the Heinrich Böll Foundation website on October 31, 2024. The original link is here.