By Alia Hassan, Director of International Policy and Hassaan Sipra, Director of Global Engagement
The disappointing conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 29th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP29) in Baku last month underscored the continuing lack of political will to confront fossil-fuel-driven public and private interests. Though hard-fought, commitments made on climate finance were a blow to Global South sustainable development needs. As greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation efforts continue to fall short of stated goals, countries and communities are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of a warming world. Decades of inaction, combined with major climate impacts, has further propelled conversations about research and the potential use of Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).
Though still officially absent from the UNFCCC agenda, discussions around SRM have gained traction at COPs through side events, writings and informal dialogues*. This marks an increasing trend, as scientists and civil society help policymakers grapple with the potential risks and benefits of these climate interventions to counter the effects of climate change. Though this growing shift may indicate more engagement, far broader and more diverse groups of stakeholders need resources dedicated to capacity building to learn about how these emerging technologies may work and what that means for the global fight against climate change. Only then can meaningful engagement provide input into SRM research agendas and governance processes like the UNFCCC.
However, as SRM discussions gain visibility at COPs, they highlight the fragmented nature of its governance, with various UN bodies examining the issue in isolation rather than collectively.** Despite these efforts highlighting the need for the creation of a cohesive international framework to govern SRM (whether for deployment or non-deployment) that aligns with principles of climate justice, such a framework remains elusive, while uncoordinated public and private efforts continue to push forward on SRM in a variety of ways***. Additionally, this fragmented governance fails to account for the ethical concerns that arise, particularly regarding the potential to exacerbate global power imbalances.
While the UNFCCC is the primary multilateral body to address climate change, its focus on mitigation, adaptation and finance has left little room for the governance of emerging technologies like SRM. This becomes especially clear when considering the stark disparities between Global North and Global South delegations, where handling multiple, sometimes competing, negotiation priorities can be challenging for smaller delegations to manage, given their limited resources. Recognizing these difficulties only reinforces the need for outcome-neutral capacity building, something the UNFCCC is well-positioned to facilitate. Through its capacity-building mechanisms, such as the Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB), the UNFCCC could provide technical support and knowledge-sharing platforms to help countries, particularly in the Global South, better engage with the governance and potential impacts of emerging technologies like SRM.
Almost all narratives on SRM consistently start by stating that these technologies do not address the root cause of climate change – GHG emissions – and that reducing these emissions must remain the priority for global climate policy; however, pathways to operationalize that priority are perpetually subverted, making blatant the decades-long failures of the global community to leverage UNFCCC and COP processes effectively. These failures to effectively address the climate crisis are increasing the risk of turning to SRM as a quick fix or an emergency ‘solution’. In this scenario, poorly governed SRM would likely deepen the existing inequalities and power imbalances within the global climate governance system, especially between the Global North and South. For these reasons, identifying a relevant platform to address the need for inclusive, transparent global governance of SRM research and experiments is an urgent necessity.
Recognizing the challenge of moral hazard to incorporate SRM into the official agenda of the Convention, DSG argues that not addressing SRM at the UNFCCC does the global community a disservice, especially in the context of climate justice and equity. As it stands, Global South countries, which are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, have been far less involved in SRM research and discussions, a trend that is slowly changing through dedicated efforts to generate knowledge and build capacity by entities like DSG, The Degrees Initiative and the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, to name a few. Augmenting support for such programs will certainly help Global South and climate vulnerable voices lead the conversation on the governance and ethical considerations surrounding SRM, but ramping up additional support structures is necessary to cover the breadth of stakeholders who can be impacted by the potential development and use/non-use of these technologies. The longer SRM remains outside the formal climate governance framework, the greater the risk of inequitable development and worsening global inequalities. It is, therefore, crucial that SRM discussions be integrated into the broader climate response framework now to ensure a fair and transparent process.
*Some events featuring SRM at COP29 included:
- “Solar Radiation Modification: A Conversation on Governance and Research” – organized by The Degrees Initiative and ClimateNet
- “Perspectives on SRM Science, Policy, and Equity” – organized by SilverLining and Green Africa Youth Organization
- “Ethical Horizons: Navigating Climate Intervention and Solutions with Care” – organized by the American Geophysical Union
- “Enhancing Climate Services Communication: The Role of WMO and NMHSs in Addressing the Global and National Greenhouse Gas Emission Crisis” – organized by World Meteorological Organization and Ghana Meteorological Organisation
- “Resilient North – Showcasing a New Strategy in Preparation for Atlantic Tipping Points” – organized by Operaatio Arktis, UN Youth Climate Delegates of Finland, Sustenta Honduras, and UN Representatives on Sustainable Development of Netherlands
** The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the IPCC, the London Convention/London Protocol, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and the UN Environment Programme/Assembly (UNEP/UNEA) have all examined, assessed or deliberated some aspects of SRM, from its ethical implications to its governance frameworks.
***The growth in institutional interest around SRM has transformed significantly, where philanthropic, government, and private entities are all playing a part. Funding arrangements, too, have transformed, with more money than the field has ever seen before. In 2024 alone, Simons Foundation pledged $50 million for research into modeling and lab studies, particularly for alternative reflective materials, while Quadrature Capital announced a $40 million fund to catalyze research that can attract public money. The UK’s Advanced Research Innovation Agency opened a $75 million call for proposals on small scale outdoor experimentation. And Stardust Solutions, a for-profit private company launched with $15 million in venture capital, is aiming to bring a ‘biosafe’ proprietary aerosol product to the market.