The European Union should “proactively negotiate” for a global regime that governs controversial technologies designed to cool the planet– and push to prevent their deployment, the union’s scientific advisors have said.
The recommendations from the EU’s chief scientific advisors mark the first time the union has received scientific advice on a highly divisive group of technologies known as “Solar Radiation Management” (SRM).
SRM technologies are designed to temporary relieve the world from extreme heat by blocking some of the sun’s warming impacts. This could include pumping aerosols into the high atmosphere, spraying saltwater into clouds to brighten them, or even sending mirrors into orbit to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth.
These technologies wouldn’t address the root cause of climate change – namely rising heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions – nor could they address the impacts of those emissions on ocean acidification for example.
“At best, they would reduce warming from solar radiation on a temporary and local scale,” the scientific opinion notes.
Risky strategy
It’s a risky strategy. Deploying SRM carries major uncertainties and wide-ranging risks, that are poorly understood.
SRM deployment is “likely to bring substantial negative ecological and economic effects, including changing patterns of rainfall, impacts on ecosystems, a decrease in the security of food production and in the potential of solar energy,” the report warns.
World Bank raises $100 billion for poor nations in boost for climate finance
The EU doesn’t have an official position on SRM although it “does not consider SRM as a solution”, according to a policy scoping paper, which describes the technologies as “an unacceptable risk for humans and the environment”.
Last year, the EU’s then Green Deal chief Frans Timmermans requested advice from the union’s seven scientific advisors to help define a common position.
In response, the advisors have urged the EU to prioritise reducing greenhouse gas emissions and focus on adaptation to climate impact as the main solutions to global warming.
The uncertainties associated with deploying SRM are inconsistent with Europe’s “do no harm” principles and decision-makers should agree an EU-wide moratorium, they concluded.
At the same time, SRM is gaining more attention as a potential cheap and fast solution to reduce overheating as the world barrels towards overshooting the 1.5C warming threshold above which scientists have warned of catastrophic climate change. “Cooling credits”, which at least one company using SRM technology is already selling at small-scale, should be banned from being used to meet international climate obligations, the advisors added.
Wild West
Yet, there is no international framework governing SRM activities.
Biden uses only Africa visit to promote “game changer” railway for copper and cobalt
A de facto moratorium was agreed in 2010 by members of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, with exceptions for small-scale scientific research studies – but the decision isn’t legally binding and the United States is not member to the treaty
The EU should take a leading role in negotiating a global governance system and push for the “non-deployment of SRM in the foreseeable future”, with exemption for “limited outdoor research” that meet a set of conditions and risk considerations, the advisors argue.
Besides a ban on large-scale outdoor experiments, they recommended the creation of “clear ethical requirements” and guidelines for smaller research projects. Any public funding for SRM research should not replace financing climate action and scientific evidence for researching and using the technology should be reassessed every five to 10 years, they added.
The EU Commission has previously expressed support for discussions on a global governance framework, including for research. But recent attempts to find a global consensus on how to regulate SRM activities have failed.
Hibaa Ismael, a lead negotiator for the African Group at the UN Environment Assembly, told Climate Home that the EU should “uphold its opposition to solar radiation management” and “collaborate with African and Pacific governments to champion a global non-use agreement, ensuring that this risky and uncertain technology is neither developed nor deployed”.
For Janos Pasztor, a veteran climate scientists and diplomat who has long argued for an SRM governance mechanism, the advice could put “oil on the wheels” to get the issue considered with the UN system.
The alternative is letting the nascent industry mark its own homework, he told Climate Home, citing his recent experience as a consultant for US-Israeli startup Stardust Solutions, which is developing its own code of conduct for launching reflective particles into the stratosphere.
“Governance is needed whether you want to you to make use of SRM or have a framework to ensure that you stop the kind of activities that we have seen, or provide a framework within which they can operate properly and safely,” he said.
But allowing outdoor research and testing of SRM technologies is highly contested, even at small-scale.
Proponents of research like Matthias Honegger, of the Brussels-based think-tank Centre for Future Generations, argue public-funded research is necessary to inform discussions and allow governments to make informed decisions on the potential use of SRM.
“If the EU doesn’t research it, there’s a real risk of not being ready to actually shape the global conversation,” he said, welcoming the advice.
Slippery slope
Critics argue allowing outdoor testing provides “a slippery slope” that risks normalising the technology towards future deployment.
Aarti Gupta, is a member of the expert group which reviewed evidence on which the advice was made and the co-initiator of an academic initiative calling for the non-use of solar geoengineering, which has been signed by more than 500 scientists.
She described the recommendations as going in the right direction but cautioned about allowing outdoor research, even with strong guardrails.
“There’s no amount of small-scale research or anything which will tell us what we actually want to know on the consequences of using SRM at planetary scale,” she told Climate Home.
“We find it very important that there should be an international norm shift, that we should not be talking about SRM as an option. It’s too risky to keep it on the table.”
(Reporting by Chloé Farand; editing Joe Lo)
The post EU should push for global deal not to deploy solar geoengineering, advisors say appeared first on Climate Home News.
EU should push for global deal to curb solar geoengineering, advisors say
A new storm recovery charge could soon hit Georgia Power customers’ bills, as climate change drives more destructive weather across the state.
Hurricane Helene may be long over, but its costs are poised to land on Georgians’ electricity bills. After the storm killed 37 people in Georgia and caused billions in damage in September 2024, Georgia Power is seeking permission from state regulators to pass recovery costs on to customers.
Gov. Mikie Sherrill says she supports both AI and lowering her constituents’ bills.
With New Jersey’s cost-of-living “crisis” at the center of Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s agenda, her administration has inherited a program that approved a $250 million tax break for an artificial intelligence data center.
Amid Affordability Crisis, New Jersey Hands $250 Million Tax Break to Data Center
Gabrielle Dreyfus is chief scientist at the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, Thomas Röckmann is a professor of atmospheric physics and chemistry at Utrecht University, and Lena Höglund Isaksson is a senior research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
This March scientists and policy makers will gather near the site in Italy where methane was first identified 250 years ago to share the latest science on methane and the policy and technology steps needed to rapidly cut methane emissions. The timing is apt.
As new tools transform our understanding of methane emissions and their sources, the evidence they reveal points to a single conclusion: Human-caused methane emissions are still rising, and global action remains far too slow.
This is the central finding of the latest Global Methane Status Report. Four years into the Global Methane Pledge, which aims for a 30% cut in global emissions by 2030, the good news is that the pledge has increased mitigation ambition under national plans, which, if fully implemented, could result in the largest and most sustained decline in methane emissions since the Industrial Revolution.
The bad news is this is still short of the 30% target. The decisive question is whether governments will move quickly enough to turn that bend into the steep decline required to pump the brake on global warming.
What the data really show
Assessing progress requires comparing three benchmarks: the level of emissions today relative to 2020, the trajectory projected in 2021 before methane received significant policy focus, and the level required by 2030 to meet the pledge.
The latest data show that global methane emissions in 2025 are higher than in 2020 but not as high as previously expected. In 2021, emissions were projected to rise by about 9% between 2020 and 2030. Updated analysis places that increase closer to 5%. This change is driven by factors such as slower than expected growth in unconventional gas production between 2020 and 2024 and lower than expected waste emissions in several regions.
Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities
This updated trajectory still does not deliver the reductions required, but it does indicate that the curve is beginning to bend. More importantly, the commitments already outlined in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions and Methane Action Plans would, if fully implemented, produce an 8% reduction in global methane emissions between 2020 and 2030. This would turn the current increase into a sustained decline. While still insufficient to reach the Global Methane Pledge target of a 30% cut, it would represent historical progress.
Solutions are known and ready
Scientific assessments consistently show that the technical potential to meet the pledge exists. The gap lies not in technology, but in implementation.
The energy sector accounts for approximately 70% of total technical methane reduction potential between 2020 and 2030. Proven measures include recovering associated petroleum gas in oil production, regular leak detection and repair across oil and gas supply chains, and installing ventilation air oxidation technologies in underground coal mines. Many of these options are low cost or profitable. Yet current commitments would achieve only one third of the maximum technically feasible reductions in this sector.
Recent COP hosts Brazil and Azerbaijan linked to “super-emitting” methane plumes
Agriculture and waste also provide opportunities. Rice emissions can be reduced through improved water management, low-emission hybrids and soil amendments. While innovations in technology and practices hold promise in the longer term, near-term potential in livestock is more constrained and trends in global diets may counteract gains.
Waste sector emissions had been expected to increase more rapidly, but improvements in waste management in several regions over the past two decades have moderated this rise. Long-term mitigation in this sector requires immediate investment in improved landfills and circular waste systems, as emissions from waste already deposited will persist in the short term.
New measurement tools
Methane monitoring capacity has expanded significantly. Satellite-based systems can now identify methane super-emitters. Ground-based sensors are becoming more accessible and can provide real-time data. These developments improve national inventories and can strengthen accountability.
However, policy action does not need to wait for perfect measurement. Current scientific understanding of source magnitudes and mitigation effectiveness is sufficient to achieve a 30% reduction between 2020 and 2030. Many of the largest reductions in oil, gas and coal can be delivered through binding technology standards that do not require high precision quantification of emissions.
The decisive years ahead
The next 2 years will be critical for determining whether existing commitments translate into emissions reductions consistent with the Global Methane Pledge.
Governments should prioritise adoption of an effective international methane performance standard for oil and gas, including through the EU Methane Regulation, and expand the reach of such standards through voluntary buyers’ clubs. National and regional authorities should introduce binding technology standards for oil, gas and coal to ensure that voluntary agreements are backed by legal requirements.
One approach to promoting better progress on methane is to develop a binding methane agreement, starting with the oil and gas sector, as suggested by Barbados’ PM Mia Mottley and other leaders. Countries must also address the deeper challenge of political and economic dependence on fossil fuels, which continues to slow progress. Without a dual strategy of reducing methane and deep decarbonisation, it will not be possible to meet the Paris Agreement objectives.
Mottley’s “legally binding” methane pact faces barriers, but smaller steps possible
The next four years will determine whether available technologies, scientific evidence and political leadership align to deliver a rapid transition toward near-zero methane energy systems, holistic and equity-based lower emission agricultural systems and circular waste management strategies that eliminate methane release. These years will also determine whether the world captures the near-term climate benefits of methane abatement or locks in higher long-term costs and risks.
The Global Methane Status Report shows that the world is beginning to change course. Delivering the sharper downward trajectory now required is a test of political will. As scientists, we have laid out the evidence. Leaders must now act on it.
The post Curbing methane is the fastest way to slow warming – but we’re off the pace appeared first on Climate Home News.
Curbing methane is the fastest way to slow warming – but we’re off the pace
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits