Civil society groups, Indigenous Peoples, and climate justice advocates have voiced alarm over new recommendations on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) issued by the Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission. While the report highlights the significant risks of SRM, critics argue that its policy proposals could legitimize and accelerate the development of solar geoengineering.
Based on an Expert Review Report by SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), the recommendations suggest negotiating a global governance regime for SRM. While the EU is advised to adopt a “Non-Deployment” stance, this position would be reviewed every five years. The proposal also allows for outdoor experiments and public funding for geoengineering research, moves that have drawn criticism from environmental groups like the Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance.
Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America Director at ETC Group, warned that solar geoengineering poses disproportionate risks to the Global South, deepens inequality, and could be used by powerful nations to delay essential greenhouse gas reductions.
She emphasized that once developed, such technologies could be unilaterally deployed, as has occurred with other hazardous technologies throughout history. Her concerns align with those of over 500 scientists who argue that geoengineering governance poses insurmountable challenges.
Linda Schneider, Senior Programme Officer at Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, criticized the EU’s recommendation to fund and permit outdoor experiments. She argued that no amount of research can resolve the unpredictable and incalculable risks posed by geoengineering. Instead of facilitating these technologies, she called on the EU to adopt a firm stance against their development.
Calls for a binding Non-Use Agreement on geoengineering are growing. The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) in 2023 led the charge, urging a formal Non-Use instrument. Countries like Fiji, Vanuatu, Colombia, and Pakistan echoed this position at the United Nations Environment Assembly. The European Parliament also supported a Non-Use mechanism, while Germany expressed openness to further dialogue on the issue.
Mary Church, Geoengineering Campaign Manager at the Center for International Environmental Law, argued that while the EU’s proposal to support a “Non-Deployment” stance is encouraging, the suggestion to review this position every five years sends mixed signals.
She called for an outright ban on outdoor experiments, noting that small-scale tests do not provide meaningful insight into SRM’s climate impacts but instead normalize a dangerous technology. Church also highlighted the contradiction between geoengineering and international legal principles, including the precautionary principle and human rights obligations.
Critics are urging the EU to honor the Convention on Biological Diversity’s moratorium on solar radiation modification and to support measures that address the root causes of climate change, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Without clear action, they warn, the EU risks enabling the development and deployment of a controversial technology that could further destabilize the global climate and deepen environmental inequality.
