Civil society groups including Indigenous Peoples and climate justice groups have expressed concern about recommendations on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) published on Monday, December 9, 2024, by Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission. While the advice highlights the grave and essentially irresolvable risks of Solar Radiation Modification, the policy recommendations risk legitimising and facilitating solar geoengineering.

The Scientific Opinion of the Chief Scientific Advisors draws on an Expert Review Report produced by SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission which was also published on Monday. 

The recommendations include negotiating a global governance regime for solar geoengineering, and while the European Union is advised to take a position of “Non-Deployment” into these negotiations, that position would potentially be up for review every five years. The recommendations also include authorising some outdoor solar geoengineering experiments, a clear red line for the Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance, as well as funding some of these. 

According to the group, geoengineering technofixes do not address the root causes of climate change and instead risk leading to further climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and impact on peoples, communities and territories. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to reinforce the precautionary approach to geoengineering, reaffirming its de facto global moratorium on geoengineering at COP16 last month citing concern about the proliferation of outdoor solar and marine geoengineering experiments in recent years.

Global South countries are increasingly raising the alarm about solar geoengineering and leading calls for a Non-Use Agreement. In 2023 the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) called for a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use instrument and was supported by many global South countries including Fiji, Vanuatu, Colombia and Pakistan at the United Nations Environment Assembly in calling for a precautionary approach, as a controversial resolution was negotiated. The EU Parliament also passed a resolution calling for a Non-Use mechanism last year, while Germany has indicated that it is open to dialogue on a Non-Use Agreement.

Linda Schneider, Senior Programme Officer International Climate and Energy Policy, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung said: “The policy recommendations of the European Union Commission’s advisory group do not do justice to the grave and irresolvable risks of solar geoengineering clearly outlined in the report.

“Instead of kickstarting an open-ended negotiation process that could end up enabling solar geoengineering deployment, the European Union should work with African and Pacific governments to establish a clear and robust international non-use agreement.

“This is exactly what the European Parliament has already called for in 2023: It called on the European Commission and the European Union member states to initiate a non-use agreement at the international level in accordance with the precautionary principle.

“The EU should also not allow any field experiments on geoengineering, as recommended by the advisory group, and should certainly not fund geoengineering research with public funds. Further research will never be able to resolve the inherent, incalculable risks of such a planetary-scale experiment. We know enough about these technologies to be sure that their use would only cause more climate chaos. Their development should be stopped immediately.”

Mary Church, Geoengineering Campaign Manager at the Center for International Environmental Law said: “While the evidence review clearly lays out the unacceptable and unmanageable risks of solar geoengineering, the recommendations put forward by the Chief Scientific Advisors risk opening the door to a facilitative governance regime. It’s encouraging to see talk of support for a non-deployment regime, but reviewing the position every five years sends very mixed signals about commitment to preventing the use of solar geoengineering.

“The EU should rule out funding outdoor experiments. Small-scale outdoor experiments simply cannot provide meaningful information on the intended climate impact of solar geoengineering, but they do serve technology development and risk normalising these dangerous technologies.

As the European Union debates the future of solar geoengineering, it must acknowledge that these highly speculative technologies not only pose significant environmental and social risks but also stand in clear contradiction to international law, including the precautionary principle and human rights obligations. With the reaffirmation of the global geoengineering moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is critical that the EU respect this agreement and reject any outdoor experiments or research that could jeopardize ecosystems and communities worldwide.”

Tom Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network, said: “Solar geoengineering does not address greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel extraction, the root cause of climate change. It serves as a distraction from dealing with climate change, while providing another colonialist excuse to Western science to experiment on Indigenous Peoples and their lands and territories without their free, prior and informed consent.”

Mfoniso C. Xael, Programmes Manager, Health of Mother Earth Foundation, said: “Authorising outdoor experiment of Solar Radiation Modification is tantamount to approval of open experiment. There is no way the desired effect of SRM can be felt if not done at scale – doing so at scale means risking lives both of humans and non-humans. The impacts of SRM cannot at this moment be quantified, we are calling on the European Union to stop all attempts at outdoor experiments and review the policy recommendations that risk legitimising and facilitating Solar Radiation Modification.

“The question of whether or not Geoengineering can be governed should already be out of negotiations as it obviously can’t. The focus now for all peoples should be on addressing the root causes of climate change. It’s not wise to attempt mopping a floor when the tap (the real source of leakage) is still on.”

Kwami Kpondzo, Co-Coordinator of HOME! Alliance Africa Working Group, said: “Since policies have to be made to serve people, it is important that the content of the policies meet the desires of people. Geoengineering technologies to combat climate change are not welcome either in Europe or Africa. People and the planet should benefit from climate solutions. Solar Radiation Modification is uncertain, and studies show that it’s risky and will have huge impacts on people, their livelihoods, and forests in Africa. The AMCEN, put hold on Solar Radiation Modification for a reason and we don’t want Africa or any other continent to conduct geoengineering experiments.

Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America Director, ETC Group, said: “Solar geoengineering is a set of dangerous hypothetical technological proposals that carries unacceptable risks, especially for the Global South. It will deepen global inequity and it is already used globally as an excuse to delay real GHG reductions and effective climate action that addresses the causes and prevents further climate change.

“Once developed, it will be used unilaterally by those with the resources and control over the technology, as it has happened with other dangerous technologies in history. Over 500 scientists have considered that its governance implies insurmountable challenges.

“In view of new projects and proposed experiments to develop geoengineering, the Convention on Biological Diversity in November 2024, reaffirmed its moratorium on geoengineering and urged all Parties to ensure its implementation.

“The European Union should make sure that solar radiation modification experiments are not allowed and actively engage to develop an international non-use agreement.”

Coraina de la Plaza, Global Coordinator, Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance, said: Instead of periodically reviewing its position on Solar Radiation Modification, the European Commission should support and join countries that have already called for an international non-use agreement and listen to the European Parliament, which only a year ago also called on the European Commission to initiate work on an international non-use agreement. The impacts of Solar Radiation Modification can be too vast and unpredictable, affecting regions and populations unevenly for the EU to even consider reviewing its position on the issue.”