Switzerland has started a global debate on whether the “risks, benefits and uncertainties” of the solar eclipse should be studied by a United Nations expert group.
It suggests that the world body collect information on ongoing research into solar geoengineering, and set up an advisory panel that could suggest future options for the untested and controversial approach to reducing global warming, which has implications for food supplies, biodiversity, global inequality and security.
The Swiss proposal, submitted to the United Nations Environment Assembly starting next week in Nairobi, focuses on solar radiation modification (SRM). It is a technique that aims to mimic the effect of a large volcanic eruption by filling the atmosphere with sulfur dioxide particles that reflect some of the sun’s heat and light back into space.
Supporters of the proposal, including the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), argue that research is needed to ensure multilateral oversight of emerging planet-changing technologies, which might otherwise be developed and tested in isolation by powerful governments or billionaire individuals.
However, critics argue that such a discussion would threaten the current de-facto ban on geoengineering, and lead to a “slippery slope” to legitimization, mainstreaming and eventual deployment.
Felix Wertli, the Swiss ambassador for the environment, said his country’s aim in submitting the proposal was to ensure that all governments and relevant stakeholders “are informed about SRM technologies, especially about possible risks and transboundary effects.” He said the intention was not to promote or enable solar geoengineering, but to inform governments, especially those in developing countries, about what was happening.
And UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen stressed the importance of “a global conversation on SRM” in her opening address to delegates at a preliminary meeting in Nairobi. She and her colleagues stressed the move was a precaution rather than an endorsement of the technology.
But no matter how well-intentioned the proposal, some environmental groups are concerned about the direction of travel. “There is a real risk that the mandate of UNEP to write a report and set up an expert group on SRM could undermine the existing de facto moratorium on geoengineering and inadvertently provide legitimacy for the delay of actions to phase out fossil fuels,” said Mary Church of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “There are some areas that the international community has rightly decided are simply off limits, such as eugenics, human cloning and chemical weapons. Solar geoengineering belongs on that list and must quickly join it before seemingly innocuous conversations about governance lead us down a very slippery slope to deployment.”
Switzerland last proposed investigation of geoengineering at the 2019 UN Environment Assembly in 2019, but the topic was blocked by the United States and Saudi Arabia. Sources said this was because they wanted to conduct research into these technologies that were not constrained by international oversight or regulations.
Since then, the debate over solar eclipse research has intensified and expanded. In the past, it was an area largely occupied by the fossil fuel industry. But in recent years, more actors have become involved, including philanthropists, financiers and high-tech entrepreneurs, motivated by potential lucrative rewards and growing alarm about climate dangers. More money flows into the sector, especially in the United States, where Bill Gates is among the supporters of the Harvard solar geoengineering research programand groups such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Environmental Protection Fundthe Union of Concerned Scientistsand the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed support for further studies on sunlight reflection technologies. The sector sometimes exhibits a wild-west, make-up-the-rules-as-you-go-along for-profit spirit, most evident in the US start-up Make sunsetswhich already sells “cooling credits” and claims to have conducted outdoor tests in Mexico.
The Mexican government has since prohibit such experiments on its territory. The European Parliament recognized the need for restrictive management and the application of the precautionary principle in a statement last year on solar geoengineering.
In 2022, more than 400 scientists have signed an appeal for a solar geoengineering non-use agreement which stipulated no public funding, no deployment, no patents, no experiments and no support in international fora.
In scientific forums, SRM is a growing focus of concern. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted critical knowledge gaps and risks related to SRM in their Sixth Assessment Report. Last January, the Montreal Protocol reported for the first time the damage that can be done to the ozone layer by the SRM technique known as a stratospheric aerosol injection.
Last year, the UN Environment Program was criticized for publishing a paper on solar geoengineering, One atmosphere, which included contributions from both proponents and opponents of SRM and recommendations for more research, including open-air experiments. CIEL said this has helped the deployment of the technology.
UNEP’s chief scientist, Dr Andrea Hinwood, said such accusations were unfair because her organization did not advocate these technologies and stressed the priority was to reduce emissions.
“At the same time, we don’t want to be in a position where we’re caught off guard a few months or even years down the track and catching up,” she said. “I know people think that potentially creates a space where these technologies can be supported, but I also think not discussing it is more problematic.”
In Nairobi, the fate of the Swiss proposal hangs in the balance. Senegal, which was initially a co-sponsor, withdrew. Many other nations, including again the US and Saudi Arabia, expressed doubts. The African delegates emphasize no use. But Wertli said he believed the vote was more positive than in 2019. “This time you can see people are ready to discuss because the debate has progressed,” he said. “There was a general recognition in the opening debate that more research and information is needed. This is new and shows that the resolution responds to a need.”
