\n Europe\u2019s first scientific advice on the technology urges Brussels to prevent its deployment, leaving room for limited outdoor research <\/p>\n
The European Union should \u00a0\u201cproactively negotiate\u201d for a global regime that governs controversial technologies designed to cool the planet \u2013 and push to prevent their deployment, its scientific advisors have said. <\/strong><\/p>\n The recommendations<\/a> from the EU\u2019s Scientific Advice Mechanism mark the first time the bloc has received such advice on a highly divisive group of technologies known as \u201cSolar Radiation Management\u201d (SRM).<\/p>\n SRM technologies are designed to temporarily relieve the world from extreme heat by blocking some of the sun\u2019s warming impacts. This could include pumping aerosols into the high atmosphere, spraying saltwater into clouds to brighten them, or even sending mirrors into orbit to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth.<\/p>\n These technologies wouldn\u2019t tackle the root cause of climate change \u2013 namely rising heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions \u2013 nor could they address the impacts of those emissions on ocean acidification for example.<\/p>\n \u201cAt best, they would reduce warming from solar radiation on a temporary and local scale,\u201d the scientific opinion notes.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a risky strategy. SRM carries major uncertainties and wide-ranging risks<\/a> that are poorly understood.<\/p>\n Deployment is \u201clikely to bring substantial negative ecological and economic effects, including changing patterns of rainfall, impacts on ecosystems, a decrease in the security of food production and in the potential of solar energy,\u201d the EU report warns.<\/p>\n World Bank<\/strong> raises $100 billion for poor nations in boost for climate finance<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The EU doesn\u2019t have an official position on SRM, although it \u201cdoes not consider [it] as a solution\u201d, according to a 2023 policy scoping paper<\/a>, which describes the deployment of these technologies as \u201can unacceptable risk for humans and the environment\u201d.<\/p>\n Last year, the EU\u2019s then Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans requested advice from the union\u2019s seven scientific advisors to help define a common position.<\/p>\n In response, the advisors urged the EU to prioritise reducing greenhouse gas emissions and focus on adapting to climate impacts as the main solutions to global warming.<\/p>\n The uncertainties associated with deploying SRM are inconsistent with Europe\u2019s precautionary and \u201cdo no harm\u201d principles, and decision-makers should agree an EU-wide moratorium, they concluded.<\/p>\n At the same time, SRM is gaining more attention as a potential cheap and fast solution to reduce overheating as the world barrels towards overshooting the 1.5C warming threshold above which scientists have warned of catastrophic climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cCooling credits\u201d, which at least one company using SRM technology is already selling<\/a> at small scale, should be banned from being used to meet international climate obligations, the advisors added.<\/p>\n Despite the potentially dangerous impacts of deploying SRM on a large scale, there is no international framework governing these activities.<\/p>\n A de facto moratorium was agreed in 2010 by members of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, with exceptions for small-scale scientific research studies \u2013 but the decision isn\u2019t legally binding<\/a> and the United States is not party to the treaty.<\/p>\n The EU should take a leading role in negotiating a global governance system and push for the \u201cnon-deployment of SRM in the foreseeable future\u201d, with exemptions for \u201climited outdoor research\u201d that meet a set of conditions and risk considerations, the advisors argue.<\/p>\n Besides a ban on large-scale outdoor experiments, they recommend the creation of \u201cclear ethical requirements\u201d and guidelines for smaller research projects. Any public funding for SRM research should not replace financing for research on climate action, and scientific evidence for using the technology should be reassessed every five to 10 years, they added.<\/p>\n The European Commission has previously expressed support<\/a> for discussions on a global governance framework, including for research. But recent attempts to find international consensus on how to regulate SRM activities have failed<\/a>.<\/p>\n Biden uses<\/strong> only Africa visit to promote \u201cgame changer\u201d railway for copper and cobalt<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Hibaa Ismael, a lead negotiator for the African Group at the UN Environment Assembly, told Climate Home that the EU should \u201cuphold its opposition to solar radiation management\u201d and \u201ccollaborate with African and Pacific governments to champion a global non-use agreement, ensuring that this risky and uncertain technology is neither developed nor deployed\u201d.<\/p>\n For Janos Pasztor, a veteran climate scientists and diplomat who has long argued for an SRM governance mechanism, the advice could put \u201coil on the wheels\u201d to get the issue considered within the UN system.<\/p>\n The alternative is letting the nascent industry mark its own homework, he told Climate Home, citing his recent experience as a consultant for US-Israeli startup Stardust Solutions, which is developing its own code of conduct for launching reflective particles into the stratosphere.<\/p>\n \u201cGovernance is needed whether you want to make use of SRM or have a framework to ensure that you stop the kind of activities that we have seen, or provide a framework within which [companies] can operate properly and safely,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n But allowing outdoor research and testing of SRM technologies is highly contested, even at small-scale.<\/p>\n Proponents of research like Matthias Honegger, of the Brussels-based think-tank Centre for Future Generations, argue publicly-funded research is necessary to inform discussions and allow governments to make informed decisions on the potential use of SRM.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the EU doesn\u2019t research it, there\u2019s a real risk of not being ready to actually shape the global conversation,\u201d he said, welcoming the advice.<\/p>\n But critics argue<\/a> that allowing outdoor testing provides \u201ca slippery slope\u201d that could normalise the technology towards future deployment.<\/p>\n Aarti Gupta, a professor at Wageningen University, is a member of the expert group that reviewed evidence on which the advice was formed and the co-initiator of an academic initiative<\/a> calling for the non-use of solar geoengineering, which has been signed by more than 500 scientists.<\/p>\n She described the recommendations as going in the right direction but cautioned about allowing outdoor research, even with strong guardrails.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no amount of small-scale research or anything that will tell us what we actually want to know on the consequences of using SRM at planetary scale for sustained periods of time,\u201d she told Climate Home.<\/p>\n \u201cAligned with these recommendations, the EU should now take the lead globally to initiate an international norm shift towards non-use. We should not be talking about SRM as an option. It\u2019s too risky to keep it on the table.\u201d<\/p>\nRisky strategy<\/h3>\n
\n
Creating rules<\/h3>\n
\n
Slippery slope<\/h3>\n