Governing climate cooling technologies
Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) – a set of powerful and risky technologies that could cool the planet within years – is moving from the fringes of research into mainstream climate and geopolitical discussions. Awareness is growing that rules are needed and inaction is in itself risky. Where and how do governments begin to identify governance options that meet the many challenges – political, security, and environmental – posed by SRM?
The SAFEGEOGOV project offers a way forward: it aims to equip European policymakers with practical insights and materials to test assumptions, envision plausible future scenarios and design governance options for an uncertain future – one in which policymakers may be called to make high-stakes decisions on SRM. This page presents the results of this project.
This project focuses on the governance of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) – the most studied, widely considered, inherently global type of SRM at scale.
CFG’s position on SRM
CFG does not advocate for or against the potential use of SRM. It believes it is unacceptable – full stop – to consider deployment of SRM at this time, given the serious risks and many uncertainties. SRM is not a solution to the climate crisis, and it is not a substitute for urgent decarbonization and strengthened adaptation. At the same time, CFG believes we need rules and policy guardrails for climate intervention technologies supported by open, public and transparent research. Our role is to support governments in evaluating the risks, understanding the stakes, and preparing for informed multilateral dialogue.
What this page is about
This page collates key tools developed under the SAFEGEOGOV project:
- Climate Decisions: new horizons is an interactive scenario explorer set in a fictional near future, where you step into the role of a future head of state to make decisions under pressure.
- Towards governance of climate cooling approaches gives policymakers a set of scenarios for 2036 and a guide to running practical foresight sessions to explore them.
- Negotiating solar radiation modification governance: insights from non-ideal simulations sets out what happened when experts negotiated SRM governance under crisis conditions, and where those negotiations broke down.
Used together, these tools are designed to help policymakers develop realistic governance options for SRM deployment and research.
Main findings of the SAFEGEOGOV project
The scenarios and the simulations – although conducted independently from each other – converge on several challenges that need to be addressed in order to build robust SRM governance.
1
Strategic interests outweigh climate science in decisions about SRM.
2
Science does not become on its own.
3
The climate and security communities are not listening or hearing each other.
4
Power and capacity inequalities heavily favour who shapes governance.
5
Trusted, credible information and public deliberation are a pre-condition for effective governance, not an afterthought.
None of these problems is solved by more science alone.
Climate Decisions: new horizons
The scenario explorer will be available soon. Subscribe to our email list to be notified when it’s available.
Towards governance of climate cooling approaches: Scenarios and policy planning tool
What might the world look like in 2036 if SRM has moved from the margins of political debate to its centre? To find out, CFG’s climate intervention team engaged more than 250 policymakers, scientists, civil society representatives and members of the public using a rigorous foresight methodology.
The result is four scenarios. They are a plausible snapshot of 2036, designed to help policymakers explore the implications of different futures and test how governance options hold up across them. In each of them, the decisive pressure comes from somewhere other than climate science: shared values, economic interests, regional self-protection or strategic rivalry.
The four scenarios
Values-based prohibition
The international community has reached a watershed moment as a formal treaty for a global ban on large-scale SAI testing sits before an international body despite some states saying they will not ratify it.
Hard landing
The plans of a minilateral alliance of Arctic nations to conduct a series of coordinated, small-scale regional trials are disrupted by conspiracy theories about the true nature of the research.
Silver bullet
Charismatic tech leaders frame SAI as a technological shield that protects borders and local jobs while avoiding the economic pain of the green transition.
Arms race
A contested accusation about a rival’s intentions triggers a race among global powers to accelerate their own classified SAI programmes.
Negotiating solar radiation modification governance: insights from non-ideal simulations
This report explores how SRM governance negotiations could unfold under conditions of power asymmetries and competing strategic interests. It provides insights on how actors might behave in international negotiations and crisis moments and reveals unexpected points of failure or agreement.
Our partner, the University of Leeds, together with Queen Mary University of London and Imperial College London, ran three multi-day simulations over the course of a year, supported by monthly online meetings. Thirty-five academics, policy specialists, practitioners and civil society representatives took on the roles of governments, institutions and companies. Each role came with its own interests and red lines.
The objective of the simulations was not to reach an ideal governance solution but to examine where and why negotiations break down.
What the simulations revealed
No agreement was reached in any of the three simulations, despite sustained efforts by expert participants. However, six lessons emerged:
1
Do not assume shared risks will produce restraint.
Concerns about technological sovereignty and strategic competition led great powers to accept high domestic risks for strategic gain.
2
SRM talks don’t happen in isolation.
Unrelated issues – power imbalances, disputes, security tensions – can derail negotiations regardless of SRM content.
3
Political context outweighs content.
Who tables a proposal, who backs or opposes it, and how it is perceived can matter more than what it says.
4
Institutional design choices are not neutral.
Choices over governance venue, procedural rules, agenda-setting and penholder can redistribute influence and affect outcomes.
5
Scientific cooperation isn’t neutral.
Global inequalities shape whose science ends up structuring the regime.
6
Monitoring and verification is a foundational governance option.
Together with other forms of science cooperation, it can create the basis for trust-building.
