Solar Radiation Modification: EU Must Reject Solar Geoengineering and Support Non-Use Approach

BRUSSELS, December 3, 2024 — In anticipation of forthcoming scientific advice on solar radiation modification from the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has urged the Commission to recognize the unacceptable risks posed by solar geoengineering and support the growing political momentum for an international non-use mechanism. 

Solar geoengineering is inconsistent with a wide range of obligations and principles under international law, including human rights obligations, and is the subject of several restrictive international agreements.  EU Member States are Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and, therefore, must adhere to its de facto global moratorium on geoengineering, established in 2010 and reaffirmed only last month at CBD COP16, in response to concern about the growth in uncontrolled outdoor marine and solar geoengineering experiments. 

Commenting on the anticipated scientific advice, CIEL Geoengineering Campaign Manager Mary Church said:

“As the EU has made it clear that solar geoengineering is not a solution to the climate crisis, we urge the EU to align its domestic and international stance on solar radiation modification (SRM) with a non-use approach and to join forces with States in Africa and the Pacific advocating for a non-use mechanism, paving the way for an international framework to uphold this commitment.

“The precautionary principle must remain central to the EU’s approach. As advocates of these dangerous technologies work to raise their profile, Global South countries are increasingly raising the alarm and calling for an international mechanism to ban solar geoengineering. The EU should do the same, building on the precautionary approach and restrictive governance just reaffirmed at CBD COP 16 in Calí. It should reject any outdoor experiments or research that could lead to technology development or harm ecosystems and communities in the EU or anywhere else. 

“Trying to cool the Earth by dimming the sun is inherently risky and should not even be considered a tool to help respond to the climate crisis. No amount of research or small-scale testing can ever demonstrate what would happen if these dangerous technologies were unleashed on a planetary scale. And there is nothing in the history of humanity to suggest that we could fairly and responsibly govern an undertaking like geoengineering that would need to be sustained over hundreds of years. 

“The European Union must continue to take a bold and unequivocal stance against solar geoengineering and reject any frameworks or initiatives that could legitimize or pave the way for its development or deployment. At the same time, the EU must prove its claimed climate leadership by delivering an updated climate target that reflects true ambition and fairness, demonstrating its commitment to real solutions grounded in rapid emissions reduction, fossil fuel phaseout, and a just transition.”


Media Contact


Niccolò Sarno, CIEL Global Media Relations: press@ciel.org


Note to Editors


The Commission requested advice from the Chief Scientific Advisors on questions relating to research and governance, which is expected to be published in Autumn 2024. The  Advice will be published alongside an expert evidence report, and a report from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) is expected to be published at the same time. 

The European Parliament passed a resolution last year calling for an international Non-Use mechanism. 

Geoengineering refers to large or planetary-scale interventions in the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and soils with the intention of counteracting only some of the effects of climate change. These methods range from reflecting sunlight to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These highly speculative technologies cannot be a substitute for or supplement to real climate action. Geoengineering would not address the root causes of climate change but proposes to mask some of  its effects, presenting significant new risks.