Why future generations need a seat at the table in the climate interventions discussion

After years of hesitation, steps are gradually being taken regarding Solar Radiation Modification (SRM).^[1]  EU foreign ministers have backed a deployment moratorium.^[2] Private companies are raising tens of millions to develop proprietary sun-dimming technologies. Research funding is growing. But as the politics and the money accelerate, one group remains entirely absent from the conversation: future generations.

This technology is gaining more traction because, at present, it seems to be the only tool that could rapidly lower global temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into space. But, besides not addressing the root causes of climate change, it carries real uncertainties and raises ethical, geopolitical, and environmental questions that current governance structures are not equipped to answer.

Science alone cannot determine what is right. It is also a matter of justice, of who bears the costs, who makes the decisions, and whose future is at stake. Decisions made today about these technologies will shape the world inherited by people born in the future, yet current political systems and institutions are structurally ill-equipped to represent their interests.

This is a practical gap with real consequences, and it needs institutional solutions. Decisions about SRM are too often framed as technical or scientific. They are political. Who gets a voice, whose interests count, and over what timeframe – these are democratic questions, and they should be treated as such. It is a key prerequisite for decisions that are legitimate and fair. Thus, policymakers need to treat ethics as a core part of how they decide on SRM, not a mere afterthought or a tick box exercise.

Three structural blind spots in current policy-making

We see three reasons why future generations are underrepresented in the current policy debate:

• Conceptual confusion and lack of representation: Future generations are routinely interchanged with young people alive today. This is both conceptually imprecise and unfair: generations born in the future cannot be represented by those who are already living in the present. Merging these two groups narrows the intergenerational frame and leaves a significant representational gap that only dedicated institutional mechanisms can fill.
• Political short-termism: Political systems are structurally geared toward the urgent, and short electoral cycles make it difficult to act on behalf of people who do not yet exist. This creates a challenge for SRM, which involves technologies with deep-time consequences that political systems are not equipped to address properly. SRM governance cannot default to the same short-term logic: decisions shaped by what is urgent today, at the cost of what is necessary and beneficial tomorrow.
• The missing cost of inaction: Current risk assessments focus on the costs of acting. They rarely weigh the equally serious costs of inaction. Present debates on SRM often focus on the risks of deployment, actively dismissing the risks of not researching it. This would leave future generations without the knowledge or tools for informed decision-making should SRM need to be considered.^[3]

The European Commission’s Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness, published in March 2026, placed long-term thinking on the political agenda as a cross-cutting concern for the first time. However, its focus remains largely on young people alive today. That is not the same thing as representing future generations, as the strategy lacks commitment towards that, says little about how to involve future generations in present-day decision-making or how to govern emerging technologies that will shape the future.

While the ethical bodies of UNESCO and the EU recommended inclusive deliberation on SRM, and also through mechanisms for citizens’ participation, the SRM debate is entering public discussions before the frameworks needed to include future generations are in place. What can the EU do now, proactively, to address this gap?

Define what ‘future generations’ actually means

The discourse around future generations – what they are, why their interests are distinct from those of young people today, and why they matter for governance – has yet to enter the mainstream of policy thinking, despite some encouraging efforts. A further challenge is the lack of a clear definition of “future generations”.

Decision-makers engaging with SRM need awareness of these concepts as a baseline: without it, the representational gap will persist regardless of what mechanisms are put in place. This literacy must be grounded in an honest account of SRM’s uncertainties and potential benefits alongside its risks, in line with the approach the European Group on Ethics (EGE) called for in its recent Opinion on SRM. Understanding the problem is a starting point, not a solution — but nothing else in this piece works without it.

Use foresight to make their needs visible in SRM decisions

Scenario planning can turn the needs of future generations into policy variables that policymakers can act on, rather than abstract obligations. The aim is not to predict the future, but to stress-test decision-making, reflect on the choices, and identify robust actions that can be taken today. CFG’s SAFEGEOGOV project applies this logic directly to solar radiation modification governance, developing future scenarios to 2035, building an evidence base that allows policymakers to consider long-range impacts.

The European Commission’s recent Strategy on Intergenerational Fairness is extremely strong on the potential for anticipatory governance and strategic foresight to offer practical frameworks to feed and inform decisions with long-term impacts.

Require impact assessments that weigh the cost of acting and not acting

Any EU position and action on SRM should be assessed in view of the costs of action and the costs of inaction, explicitly accounting for impacts on future generations. This is in line with the Commission’s own Chief Scientific Advisors, who have called for research into SRM to be rigorous, ethical, and explicit about uncertainties, including the full range of potential effects and justice issues, so that decision-makers are not left without the knowledge they would need.

The EU’s Better Regulation Framework, as advocated by JESC, offers a transferable model to include mandatory impact assessments for future generations. This approach is transferable beyond the EU and could inform how a future governance framework on SRM could be conceptualised based on a transparent model. The adoption of the “youth check” by the main European institutions – including the European Commission – shows that this is not hypothetical. These institutions have already built an impact assessment mechanism for one generation. They can do it for the next.

Create dedicated institutional representation for future generations

The Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act (2015) provides the most developed real-world model: a statutory obligation on public bodies to act in the interests of future generations, backed by a Commissioner with investigative and advisory powers. It demonstrates that this is neither utopian nor unprecedented: it can be done today.

Citizens need to be involved in long-term decisions on SRM. But simple participation isn’t enough: generations born in the future need dedicated institutional representation whether through commissioners, ombudspersons, or mandated citizens’ assemblies with an explicit future generations mandate. The UN Declaration on Future Generations promotes a “whole-of-society approach” to safeguard the needs and interests of future generations, and acknowledges the proposal for a Special Envoy for Future Generations, a role that could give future generations a dedicated voice in SRM decision-making processes at the international level.