Sunlight reflection methods (SRM) – also known as solar geoengineering – would affect the whole world. The social, political, and economic questions SRM raises are potentially even more challenging than navigating its physical impacts. What rules and policy frameworks are needed? Who decides how to proceed, and where?
Why is SRM governance needed?
If sunlight reflection methods (SRM) – or solar geoengineering – were deployed at large-scale, they would change the global climate. This might greatly reduce the risks of climate change if used wisely alongside emissions cuts, or it could make them much worse if it undermines those efforts or otherwise goes wrong.
While this power to change the climate could be held by a single country, it would affect everyone.
Addressing the challenges, opportunities, and issues SRM presents will require good governance. That will mean a broad public discussion, transparent research, thorough international assessment, and the establishment of best practices and binding rules.
Learn more
What international agreements cover SRM?
There is currently no comprehensive international governance framework for SRM, though there is a patchwork of agreements and organisations that address related issues.
SRM is not banned under international law. The 1977 ENMOD treaty comes the closest, but it only bans the hostile use of environmental modification and would not apply to peaceful uses.
In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) urged countries to prevent “climate-related geo-engineering activities [including SRM] that may affect biodiversity” – except for “small scale scientific research studies”. However, this decision was non-binding, and no countries have formally adopted the recommendation.
While no firm rules have been set at the international level, there is increasing engagement with the issue in intergovernmental organisations, where it is appearing on the agenda more frequently.
Are there international laws that prohibit SRM?
| Treaty | Does It Prohibit SRM? | Reason(s) |
|---|---|---|
| United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | No | Does not address SRM. |
| Convention on Biological Diversity | No | Invitation to refrain from “geo-engineering” that might affect biodiversity (except for small-scale research), not legally binding. |
| London Protocol | No | New amendment prohibiting “marine geoengineering” (with an exception for research), not in force and not applicable to SRM. |
| ENMOD | No | Prohibition on “hostile” use of environmental modification techniques, not applicable to SRM. |
Learn more
What rules apply to SRM research and experiments?
No countries have laws that specifically apply to SRM or SRM research, though one US state has banned it and others are considering similar measures.
There are general environmental laws and guidelines from research organizations for potentially risky research that researchers must follow. However, the SRM field experiments that researchers have proposed or conducted so far have all been at such small scales that they pose negligible environmental risks.
Nevertheless, SRM field experiments and other outdoor SRM activities have been controversial, and some have been cancelled after opposition from activists and local communities.
In the absence of national or international rules, some funders and research groups working on SRM have developed their own governance arrangements for field experiments, e.g., incorporating public engagement, seeking independent reviews, or conducting more in-depth environmental impact assessments.
How do academics think SRM should be governed?
Several groups of academics have proposed governance principles for SRM research, and there is broad agreement on the basics. They generally recommend SRM studies should minimise risks, engage the public, be transparent, and avoid commercial interests.
Many academics believe that these general principles should be applied by funders or possibly formalised in international agreements, allowing small-scale SRM field experiments to proceed. Others believe that much more restrictive rules should be applied.
Hundreds of academics have signed a “non-use agreement” open letter, which goes much further than just calling for SRM to not be deployed. It also calls for no small-scale field experiments, no public funding, no patents, and no “normalisation” of SRM in international institutions. In response to this, other academics have signed a “call for balance” and another letter arguing that responsible research on SRM should be pursued.
An informed discussion is key
While laws and international agreements can play an important role in governing emerging technologies and other international issues, an informed discussion is also an essential part of effective governance.
Many groups play an important role in the discussion of SRM and will help shape decisions on it:
- Researchers – contribute research findings and conduct assessments, informing the broader discussion.
- Civil society groups and think tanks – review the evidence, adopt positions, and advocate for particular policies.
- The media – follow the latest developments and spark discussions that inform the public about the issue.
- Funders – government and philanthropic sources decide where to devote resources, shaping research and policy development.
- Governments – implement policies, set national priorities, and collaborate with other countries to research and govern these ideas.
- The public – concerned citizens help shape the discussion and elect their representatives.
For SRM to be governed well, these groups will need to be well-informed. That way they can make thoughtful contributions to this discussion and help the world make wise decisions on this difficult issue.
