Introducing SAFEGEOGOV – a project update from the climate interventions team
The Climate interventions program team has started a new project dedicated to exploring how Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) could be governed responsibly: SAFEGEOGOV – funded by the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA). It explores geopolitical scenarios up to 2035 to gain a better understanding of the governance needs that we may face in this imperfect and often chaotic world.
Why this project, why now?
As the planet is on a trajectory to almost 3°C of warming this century, political and scientific interest in SRM is growing. These techniques could, in theory, lower global temperatures and reduce climate impacts. Yet they also pose profound uncertainties and risks — from environmental side effects to ethical dilemmas and geopolitical tensions. No country is presently prepared for the climate chaos of a world that is – on average – 3°C warmer. And no country has yet fully examined the positive or negative effects of SRM deployment scenarios.
Climate risks and those that might be caused by SRM deployment don’t just raise the question of whether such an intervention might ever be considered responsibly, but of who gets to ask the question and through which process a collective global decision might be taken. We need to learn more about the implications and the context in which these questions might be asked – not because there are any concrete plans to deploy SRM, but because it is not clear who gets to make that decision. If any country announced plans to develop SRM, everyone should be empowered to at least gauge the implications. SAFEGEOGOV starts from the premise that governance can’t be an afterthought. Governance needs should be anticipated, and possible answers tested under pressure, and debated openly long before any announcement that these interventions might move from theory to practice.
What SAFEGEOGOV will do
SAFEGEOGOV investigates geopolitical futures and examines how SRM decisions could unfold – for better or worse – in those different contexts, with a timeframe up to 2035. Leveraging strategic foresight, a listening-and-learning approach and experience in multilateral and global governance, the project aims to identify:
- Geopolitical tensions that could shape SRM decisions under conditions of mistrust or shifting power balances.
- Trade-offs and polarities between values like precaution and preparedness, fairness and effectiveness and their implications for research.
- Governance elements and pathways that are legitimate, fair, and robust to the challenging real-world conditions we have to expect and those we cannot anticipate.
Rather than offering a single blueprint, the project will generate scenarios and associated governance needs and options that help decision-makers, civil society, and scientific actors confront uncertainty with greater humility and preparedness.
Who’s involved
SAFEGEOGOV is led by CFG’s Climate Intervention program, in collaboration with UK-based academics led by Dr. Danielle Young at the University of Leeds. Their expertise spans international security, global governance, and lessons from difficult domains such as nuclear non-proliferation.
The project also draws on the foresight expertise of Dr. Trish Lavery, CFG’s strategic foresight consultant, and engages partners, including the OECD and climate vulnerable countries and other stakeholders in the Global South. This diversity of perspectives reflects SAFEGEOGOV’s ambition to bridge academic and policy debates and to ensure governance discussions are shaped by a wide set of voices.
Looking forward
Over the coming months, the project will:
- co-create, develop and refine four geopolitical scenarios with a 10-year horizon,
- engage with stakeholders across regions and sectors to identify governance needs,
- explore options that might respond to those governance needs, and
- publish analyses and briefs to support further deliberation.
We hope that this work will aid the conversation on SRM governance to move beyond the current impasse of speculative fears and narrow technical fixes, toward governance that is informed, inclusive, and transparent.