What Europeans think about solar radiation modification

Introduction

Any large-scale deployment of SRM would carry planetary-scale effects, spread unevenly across regions, and would bear consequences for generations to come. This set of technologies is drawing growing attention as climate risks intensify, but the discussion has so far stayed largely within scientific and policy circles.

Decisions about SRM’s future will affect everyone. As the findings below show, most citizens currently know very little about it and have had little chance to weigh in. Closing that knowledge gap and taking citizens’ concerns seriously are central to guiding any future research and to building responsible governance.

We evaluated a set of recent multi-country surveys of European publics to understand where people actually stand. Drawing on studies conducted across Austria, Germany, Italy, the UK, Poland, Switzerland, Spain and Norway, this brief looks at how familiar Europeans are with SRM, how they react when first introduced to it, the conditions under which they support or oppose further research, and the concerns that shape their views.

How familiar are European citizens with Solar Radiation Modification (SRM)? 

Few Europeans know what SRM is. A majority of Europeans have never heard of SRM or stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Surveys conducted in Austria, Germany, Italy, the UK and Norway illustrate that as much as two-thirds of respondents are not aware of the technology^[1],^[2]. Furthermore, among other climate intervention technologies, SRM is the one with which they are least familiar.

However, a survey distributed across 14 European countries to self-identified ethnic minorities and Indigenous peoples found that they had greater familiarity with these technologies than all of the other respondents^[3].

How do Europeans react to learning about SRM?

Initial reactions tend to vary depending on how directly people feel affected by climate change. Openness to SRM is closely linked to the threat of climate change and personal experience of its effects^[4] [5]. Where climate change is seen as immediate and threatening, acceptance^[6] of potential implementation and use of SRM tends to increase, largely driven by a sense of necessity rather than active support^[7].

Europeans in parts of Northern Europe often express greater scepticism^[8], reflecting a perception that climate change, while serious, is not yet as disruptive for them personally^[9],^[10]. By contrast, respondents in Germany who found climate change to be a serious problem expressed more openness to SRM^[11].

Support for climate intervention technologies, particularly SRM, correlates more strongly within younger populations. This is true across the globe, including in European countries^[12].

Are Europeans supportive of SRM research?

European publics are generally not opposed to SRM research, but with conditions. Participants in the surveys favour further study and an assessment of environmental, social, and geopolitical risks and benefits^[13]. Additionally, most respondents favour independent review mechanisms and agreed rules rather than moratoria^[14].

There is support for public funding of research — though stronger in the Global South — provided it is transparent and conducted by trusted scientific institutions^[15] [16]. Universities and independent experts are typically the most trusted actors, and participants expect clear communication to the public and disclosure of conflicts of interest^[17].

What do Europeans think about testing?

Many draw a clear line between indoor and outdoor research. While modelling and indoor research are often seen as acceptable, outdoor experiments — especially at larger scales — are viewed as more sensitive, and, if conducted, should be preceded by international agreement and oversight given potential transboundary effects^[18].

Although some groups, including members of Indigenous or ethnic minority communities, express greater openness to small-scale trials^[19], others have expressed clear opposition to testing, like the Sámi people in Sweden^[20]. At the same time, some participants doubted whether small-scale research can meaningfully predict planetary-scale effects and expressed concern about unforeseen side effects and overreliance on modelling^[21].

What concerns dominate European public attitudes towards SRM?

Alongside the potential benefits of SRM (e.g., the capacity to lower temperatures^[22] [23] and possibly support food security^[24]), respondents also raised several concerns:

• Geopolitical concerns: Uneven regional impacts, unequal capabilities^[25], and the possibility of unilateral deployment are seen as potential sources of conflict ^[26].
• Ethical concerns: Some worry that politicians or corporations might use SRM as a justification to delay emissions reduction (moral hazard or “techno-fix” illusion)^[27]. Aversion to “tampering with nature” is also a strong reason for opposition to SRM in surveys across Europe^[28][29], although others frame it as a possible means of protecting natural systems in the face of a climate emergency. In this sense, reactions often depend on whether nature is viewed as something that must not be interfered with, or as something already damaged that may require active protection^[30].
• Scientific concerns: Some feared unintended side effects and effects on precipitation patterns, agriculture^[31] and ecosystems^[32][33].