By Shuchi Talati, Ph.D., Founder & Executive Director
While this new Trump climate era feels remarkably similar to 2016, it is unfolding during an era of escalating climate impacts – devastating wildfires ravaging California and the Pacific Northwest, catastrophic hurricanes like Helene and Milton battering the Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard, and unprecedented flooding inundating communities in Missouri, New Mexico, and beyond. These disasters underscore that climate change is no longer a distant threat but an immediate crisis demanding urgent action.
In the weeks since the 2024 U.S. election, there has been considerable discussion about its impact on climate change, with many predictions and analyses continuing to emerge. Thus far, the message is clear: From the clean energy market outlook to adaptation funding, we’re in for an uncertain and bumpy road. However, there are also reasons for optimism, opportunities to learn, and causes worth continuing to fight for.
In that vein, I’m not saying any particular fight is more important than any other. But a topic that’s received far less attention thus far – which has the potential to be even more insidious – is solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM). As climate impacts are growing in frequency and severity, SRM is gaining momentum across the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Over the past 2 years alone, international institutions have become more deeply engaged, national governments are developing research and governance agendas, and funding has expanded rapidly in support of both use and non-use of SRM. The signals for intensified focus on this field are becoming stronger.
While SRM deployment isn’t something that could happen imminently—requiring significant technological and engineering R&D to move beyond its experimental stages—the decisions made now will shape power structures around it and the future of its development. The fast evolution of this field, already controversial, now has to contend with new realities in the United States that will have ripple effects around the world: the deeper erosion of democracy, entrenched sources of mis/disinformation, and unchecked federal power under an administration that has no interest in addressing climate change.
The Consequences of a Trump Administration on SRM
When it comes to the Trump administration and SRM, what mainly exists right now are questions. New nominations, people with vastly different and even competing views in Donald Trump’s inner circle, and drastic shifts in international priorities make for instability and unpredictability. But carefully thinking through these speculative futures can help prepare us for what might come.
Domestically, one thing we do know is that we won’t be seeing robust regulation for SRM research or deployment. Even under the best circumstances, developing governance is incredibly hard but necessary to enable public engagement, limit perverse incentives, and spur international cooperation.
An administration hell-bent on deregulation means a lack of oversight from the federal government, creating an atmosphere where the private sector and research can potentially grow unfettered. This deregulated environment could create fertile ground for private-sector actors and venture capitalists to dominate SRM research and potential deployment. The likes of Make Sunsets, a California-based SRM deployment startup actively launching balloons, and Stardust Solutions, a U.S.-Israeli for-profit research organization currently conducting outdoor experiments and exploring proprietary aerosols, won’t face public scrutiny, leaving room for more companies and venture capitalists to step into the space without constraints.
Fueling this version of reality are the now-elevated technocentric ideologies of billionaire advisors like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. Whether or not they – or others like them – will engage with SRM remains an open question, including whether their newfound power within the federal government could spur more military R&D activity.
At the same time, we also see a chaotic counterweight in the elevation of RFK Jr., a chemtrails conspiracy theorist. In addition to other conspiracy theories, RFK Jr. has endorsed chemtrails conspiracies and even interviewed chemtrails activist Dane Wigington on his podcast during an episode titled “Are Chemtrails Real?” The group that Wigington represents, Geoengineering Watch, is widely known for promoting conspiracy theories. Legitimizing this conspiracy has the potential opposite effect of slowing down or banning federal SRM research altogether, similar to state-level legislative efforts to ban SRM that were introduced in the context of chemtrails conspiracy theories.
Although the Biden administration appeared to be making strides in the regulatory space – as evidenced by a 2023 White House report on an SRM research agenda highlighting the need for governance and a recent solicitation for public input by NOAA on updating SRM reporting regulations – a Trump administration likely renders these efforts moot. This shift leaves domestic SRM activity at a critical juncture, where the absence of safeguards and oversight mechanisms could pave the way for unchecked private-sector dominance, government efforts behind closed doors, or a complete stagnation in federally supported research.
The International Climate Stakes and Ripple Effects
Globally, the consequences of this new administration are equally uncertain. With U.S. climate leadership dramatically diminished – Trump once again vowed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement – the chances of meeting the 1.5°C or even 2°C target grow slimmer. This may shift political demand in vulnerable countries in favor of SRM as an emergency approach. Alternatively, it could also spur activity trying to limit SRM growth as a way to build guardrails against expanding unregulated activity. However, consequential restrictions on SRM are implausible, as the U.S. under Trump is unlikely to sign any agreements that constrain its autonomy.
Ultimately, we know that if the U.S. isn’t meaningfully engaged in international climate policy, it likely will not play a role in international SRM governance. This raises critical questions: as the U.S. retreats from nascent global governance efforts, who will be willing to stay engaged? How will other nations or coalitions move forward (if they do), and what governance structures will they prioritize?
Contending with SRM in This New Reality
To navigate this new reality, we must ask: What role, if any, should the federal government play in SRM governance? The answer is challenging to grapple with. While a deregulation ideology could allow for greater experimentation, experimentation coming from an administration not focused on climate change could delegitimize the field and future research. We don’t want to lose momentum on research, but outcomes that aren’t trusted don’t necessarily have value in a field that already struggles with public perception. Perhaps public research is best suited to continue within protected spaces like national laboratories with a focus on modeling rather than experimentation. Universities and potential consortia might be best suited to lead the way in research governance.
Most importantly, the broader climate community’s reluctance to engage with SRM is no longer sustainable. There is a wide set of actors, largely in the Global North, that either avoid the topic or actively resist building a more inclusive discussion. Their reluctance to engage is understandable; SRM raises profound ethical, geopolitical, and scientific questions. However, ignoring it is no longer a viable option. As the U.S. federal government retreats from climate leadership, the global community must act decisively to shape the future of SRM in ways that prioritize justice, transparency, and scientific integrity. Avoiding this topic now, in the face of an anti-climate federal administration, risks leaving SRM to be developed by actors with little interest in justice or global governance.
SRM governance must be inclusive, robust, and international. We need all kinds of civil society, academia across disciplines, and media around the world to participate. Whether it’s through a focus on bolstering transparency, supporting scientific integrity, or building capacity for international research and governance – there is a lot that can and needs to be done outside of the U.S. federal government.
Waiting to engage with SRM risks ceding the field to actors who may prioritize power and profit over the public good, especially under a Trump administration that underscores the dangers of leaving SRM research and governance to an unregulated private sector or unchecked state actors. Ignoring SRM won’t make it disappear; instead, it creates opportunities for unaccountable actors to deepen inequities and amplify risks. By bringing SRM into the light, we enable it to be scrutinized, debated, and ultimately governed in the public interest, ensuring accountability and equity remain at the forefront.
In the shadow of a second-term Trump administration, the urgency is clear. The world cannot afford to bury its head in the sand. Now is the time for the global climate community to stand together, ensuring that SRM is not left to those who would prioritize profit or power over the common good.
In the coming months, we’ll continue to share analyses of the impact of the incoming administration on SRM, including its influence on domestic research agendas, international climate diplomacy, and the potential consequences for governance and equity. We’ll also continue to share insights and actionable recommendations for fostering transparency and accountability in this space.