- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
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
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
