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
Climate Change
“Sink or swim”: WA Gov hugely underestimating decline in regional gas demand while sleeping on green exports, new report finds
PERTH, Tuesday 13 October 2026 — A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals green commodity exports are an untapped economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, while offering a genuine solution for decarbonising Asia.
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State is a comprehensive analysis of the declining gas market in Asia, and the untapped economic opportunity for WA to become a global leader in green commodity exports while driving the regional shift away from fossil fuels.
The report offers key recommendations for the WA Government to support regional decarbonisation through an orderly phase out of gas exports in favour of green iron and other green exports. It comes as global climate leaders from across business, politics and advocacy prepare to meet for the Global Citizen Now: Perth event focused on decarbonising WA.
Key findings:
- Gas demand is falling across WA’s core markets in Asia: Gas demand fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline, driven by a combination of global geopolitical factors and domestic concerns.
- Policy shifts in key markets since the war on Iran now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas: Japan, South Korea and China have legislated energy plans that prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- New WA gas would arrive in a saturated, uncertain Asian market filled with cheaper gas: The US is now the world’s largest liquefied gas producer and plans to double its capacity as it also targets Asian markets.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to sustain WA’s economy: WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars.
- Exporting more WA gas is likely to delay or impede Asia decarbonisation: Despite claims by the gas industry, there is no evidence that WA gas is displacing coal in Asia, and in fact diverts resources from genuine decarbonisation options.
Geoff Bice, WA Campaign Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said: “As our export partners in Asia shift away from expensive and polluting gas, the WA Government has a golden opportunity to pivot our economy to green exports, like green iron, which is the most effective way to help our region to decarbonise.
“The writing is on the wall: gas is in decline, renewables are our future. In this context, it makes zero sense for the government to encourage high risk projects like Woodside’s reckless Browse gas proposal at Scott Reef.
“This report clearly shows that the WA Government faces a choice: sink or swim. They can either allow the gas industry to keep ripping off West Australians and continue propping up its decline, or choose the path that will deliver enormous benefits to the state and the world by becoming a leader in the rapidly expanding green economy.”
Tom Quinn, Managing Director of Springmount Advisory: “Western Australia prospers when it looks to the future and builds for future demand. Twenty years from now, what the world needs is green commodities made using WAs abundant renewable resources. Just like it did with iron ore in the 1950s and gas in the 1970s, WA should look to the future and build what the world will need, not sunsetting industries like gas that are already past their peak.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Lucy Keller on 0491 135 308 or lucy.keller@greenpeace.org
A report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific and Springmount Advisory reveals the untapped green economic opportunity for Western Australia in a declining Asian gas market, which also offers a genuine solution for decarbonisation in Asia.
Is Western Australia clinging to a fading gas industry while a thriving green future passes it by? As major Asian trading partners rapidly pivot away from volatile gas imports toward cheap solar and battery storage, this report exposes a high-stakes choice: risk becoming stranded in an oversupplied fossil fuel market, or harness WA’s unmatched sun and wind to lead the global clean energy transition.
Summary
From Gas to Green: Building Western Australia’s Future State reveals that Western Australia (WA) faces a critical juncture as falling Asian gas demand, geopolitical gas supply volatility and accelerating renewable energy deployment undermine the long-term economic viability of gas exports. By harnessing its world-class wind and solar resources, the report demonstrates that WA can execute an orderly phase-out of gas and pioneer a green commodity export economy that could generate $987 billion in economic value by 2060, create 24,000 ongoing jobs, and drive a 9.6% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Findings
- Gas demand is falling in Asia – WA can no longer rely on gas exports: Gas demand in core Asian markets fell in 2025 and is projected to continue to decline in 2026. Legislated energy plans in Japan, South Korea, and China now prioritise renewables and nuclear over gas.
- Asia is increasing renewables, importing gas just gets in the way: Evidence from markets like Thailand suggests that gas imports are increasingly crowding out cheaper renewable energy investments and battery storage rather than displacing coal, locking in more emissions over time.
- Green commodities offer a real solution to decarbonise Asia – this is a major win for WA: With world-class renewables, WA can lead Australia’s green commodity exports, which by 2060 could be worth almost a trillion dollars ($987 billion) and support a genuine 9.6% reduction in global emissions.
Recommendations to WA government
Recommendation 1: Plan an orderly gas phase-out aligned with a trading partner pivot plan
Implement a managed, orderly phase-out of gas exports aligned with trading partners’ decarbonisation pathways, rather than waiting for demand to collapse, by:
- Developing and implementing a staged phase-out of gas facilities aligned with feedstock supply expiry or typical end of facility lifespans.
- Committing to no new gas development for gas expansion, including Browse and Kimberley fields.
- Developing new, reciprocal trade relationships with existing gas trade partners, structured to progressively replace gas exports with green commodities – integrated with recommendation 2.
Recommendation 2: Develop an integrated green commodity export strategy, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub
Establish an integrated green commodity export strategy that immediately prioritises green iron development, positioning WA as a global green iron manufacturing hub, by:
- Committing to green commodity export targets to give industry and investors a clear demand signal.
- Prioritising green iron as the lead sector within the broader green commodity strategy, given WA’s iron ore endowment and first-mover potential.
Recommendation 3: Reject false solutions such as carbon dumping (CCS) and blue hydrogen
Reject carbon dumping (also described as carbon capture and storage, or CCS) and blue hydrogen as viable decarbonisation technologies, and prioritise green hydrogen and proven renewables for clean energy and fuel production by:
- Excluding blue hydrogen projects (and CCS-dependent projects) from all government support programs.
- Requiring existing hydrogen-based production (including ammonia, methanol, synthetic fuels) to have clear, near-term transition timelines to switch to green hydrogen production.
What you can do
Together, we can push for a prosperous green future.
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.
REPORT: “From Gas to Green” Building Western Australia’s Future State
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.
Policy discounts questioned
To guard against human-caused risks, projects will need to apply a flat 20% value set by the Supervisory Body, at the bottom of the 20-45% range recommended by its technical experts ahead of last week’s meeting.
That value can be further reduced by up to two-thirds if the host country has an emission-reduction plan covering forests, a long-term climate strategy and a framework for the UN’s REDD+ forest protection scheme.
Injy Johnstone, senior research fellow at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, said that, while these are important governance measures, their existence does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying risk of forest carbon loss has been reduced.
“It is important to distinguish between evidence of actual risk reduction and assumptions about the effectiveness of policy commitments,” she added.
Moving target
A UN source told Climate Home News that, under the approved formula, improved cookstove projects must set aside at least 9% of credits linked to saved wood if they operate in the lowest-risk areas and the host country can claim all available discounts. The share of credits rises significantly in regions with high natural risk values, such as Guyana, Sri Lanka and Timor Leste, or that do not have REDD+ programmes.
These factors could change in the future as the Supervisory Body asked its technical experts to recommend revisiting the risk values “should credible new evidence arise”.
Climate change is likely to make forest destruction events, such as wildfires or hurricanes, more frequent and more severe in certain regions. Meanwhile, national policies on forest protection can shift significantly depending on government changes.
Johnstone said the UN carbon market needs periodic reassessment to respond to new evidence showing that previously assumed levels of risk were too low.
“The integrity of credits is not guaranteed simply because a reversal risk tool exists,” she added. “The real test will be whether the mechanism provides equivalent atmospheric protection over time, rather than simply introducing another layer of accounting requirements”.