Media engagement
World Economic Forum Consultation on Solar Radiation Modification
28 May 2025
Interviewed by Valentin Golovtchenko, portfolio lead on Climate Technology initiatives at the World Economic Forum.
As described by the WEF: This interview is part of a series of consultations with experts across various fields to explore the role of geoengineering technologies in addressing the climate crisis. One aim of the consultation is to ascertain how the Forum could act as a neutral platform to facilitate dialogue and critically assess the scientific, technological, environmental, economic, and ethical dimensions of geoengineering.
​
Eco-Politics Podcast: Geoengineering
25 March 2025
As described on the Eco-politics website:
In this episode, we delve into the world of climate intervention and geoengineering, specifically focusing on solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM). Host Ryan Katz-Rosene explores the complexities of this technology with two leading experts. First, we hear from Dr. Pete Irvine, as he breaks down the science behind SRM, particularly stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), discusses the potential benefits and risks. Irvine addresses the current state of research and the ongoing debate surrounding field experiments. Then, we shift gears to hear from Dr. Aarti Gupta, who provides a crucial counterpoint, highlighting the voices of many in the academic community and beyond who are deeply concerned about the potential deployment of solar geoengineering. She emphasizes growing opposition from the Global South, the disproportionate impact concerning vulnerable nations and Indigenous communities, and the governance challenges that this technology presents.​​
EU Scientific Advisory Mechanism webinar: Solar radiation modification: What’s at stake for society?
3 February 2025
In this webinar, organized by the Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission, I presented key messages from the Evidence Review Report, produced by an expert group appointed by the EU's Science Advice Mechanism, to review the current state-of-the-art evidence on SRM technologies, risks and governance challenges. As a member of this Expert Working Group that produced the Evidence Review Report (ERR), I outlined key challenges covered in the report regarding governing of SRM research. These challenges include distinguishing and exercising oversight over small and large-scale research, assessing social and political risks, ensuring transparency—including of private-sector involvement—and ensuring that research into SRM does not weaken climate mitigation efforts.
Core messages from the ERR also included a need to govern to avoid the risk of a “slippery slope” from research to deployment. To safeguard against these risks, the ERR calls for strict oversight measures, mandatory disclosure, impact assessments, and oversight of commercial interests like patents and “cooling credits.” The report also warns that small-scale studies can never reveal SRM’s long-term, global-scale impacts, but might lull researchers and decision-makers into believing that evidence-based decisions in this area are feasible.
The Evidence Review Report is available here.
​​
EU-advies: gebruik voorlopig geen technologie die het zonlicht kan dimmen
[EU advice: do not use sunlight dimming technologies for the time being]
December 9, 2024
This article explains the EU’s Scientific Advice Mechanism’s recommendations on solar radiation modification (SRM). In my capacity as a member of the expert group that produced an evidence based review on the topic, I emphasize here that the EU should advocate for a global moratorium on the deployment of these risky technologies, as well as lead international efforts against their development and use. While the Scientific Opinion acknowledges the need for further understanding of SRM, I stressed, for example, that its inclusion in climate scenarios, like those used by the IPCC, is very risky because it could normalize SRM as a potential future climate policy option. I argued that the EU should take a firmer stance on SRM, pushing for long-term non-use rather than temporary restrictions.
The Guardian: EU should ban space mirrors and other solar geoengineering, scientists say
December 9, 2024
I was interviewed for this article in my capacity as a member of the EU scientific advisory mechanism's Expert Working Group that produced an evidence review report on solar radiation modification. This report underpinned the EU Scientific Opinion intended to inform EU policy on this controversial topic. In the article, I emphasized the critical need for an EU-led moratorium on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and large-scale outdoor research. I called for global leadership to establish an international 'non-deployment' regime, given the significant risks and uncertainties of SRM and its failure to address the root causes of climate change.
Climate Home News: EU should push for global deal to curb solar geoengineering, advisors say
December 9, 2024
The article reports on the EU Scientific Advice Mechanism’s recommendations on solar radiation management (SRM), which urge the EU to lead globally in pushing for a non-deployment regime for this risky and uncertain technology. While SRM is gaining attention as a potential quick fix for global warming, it doesn't address root causes like greenhouse gas emissions and carries major ecological and geopolitical risks.
I emphasize here the need for an international norm shift towards non-use of solar radiation modification and caution against even limited outdoor testing, as small-scale research cannot predict the consequences of sustained SRM deployment at a planetary scale. The EU should champion governance systems that prioritize emissions reduction and adaptation, and steer clear of normalizing SRM as a viable future climate policy option.
RND: Und was, wenn wir fürs Klima einfach die Sonne dimmen …?
[And what if we simply dimmed the sun for the climate?]
October 23, 2024
In this article, I lay out why I believe we need an international “Non-Use Agreement” for solar geoengineering. My main concern is that, once a technology like solar geoengineering is developed, its deployment is more likely, even if that is not the original intent. I argue that the act of researching and financially supporting solar geoengineering can lead to a “slippery slope” effect, where technological capabilities are developed. In my view, the ethical and governance challenges are far too significant to risk this path, especially when the focus should be on emissions reduction and sustainable adaptation strategies.
The Telegraph: Climate scientists’ taxpayer-funded plot to create ‘global cooling’
August 31, 2024
I argue that small-scale solar geoengineering research is a slippery slope to technology development and eventual deployment. While field trials might seem benign, full-scale deployment, like using reflective aerosols, would demand vast resources—hundreds of aircraft flying constantly for decades. The planetary impacts are unknown until we attempt such experiments on a global scale, which could lead to catastrophic consequences, and which cannot be governed fairly or effectively. I emphasize the risks of normalizing these technologies and shifting the focus away from the urgent need for emissions reductions.
The Conversation Weekly Podcast: Geoengineering part 2: The case against reflecting sunlight to cool the Earth
August 30, 2024
I discuss the growing pushback against solar geoengineering (SRM) experiments, including Mexico banning them after a controversial test by a US start-up over its territory, and Sweden cancelling an outdoor experiment due to opposition from Indigenous Sami peoples. There is an urgent need to ensure that these dangerous distractions don’t overshadow the urgent need for systemic change. Speaking out and fostering critical dialogue on these issues is challenging but essential.
The Conversation: Not such a bright idea: Cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space is a dangerous distraction
March 1, 2024
I reflect on the unpredictable risks of solar geoengineering interventions, such as injecting aerosols into the atmosphere or brightening clouds. Stratospheric aerosol injection or marine cloud brightening could harm ecosystems, worsen droughts, or destabilize the climate further. Advocates argue these methods can buy time, but I see them as dangerous distractions from cutting emissions and achieving a just transition worldwide. With no global governance arrangements plausible to regulate these planet-altering interventions in a fair, stable and effective manner, I believe pursuing these ideas only risks delaying the systemic action urgently needed to tackle the root causes of climate change.
BBC Inside Science podcast: Dimming the Sun
February 29, 2024
In this episode, I provided some insights into the discussions underway at the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, where countries deliberated on a resolution on solar radiation management (SRM). Where Switzerland proposed forming an expert group on SRM, other countries, including countries in the Global South, were concerned about discussing SRM as a future climate policy option. The Swiss proposal was ultimately withdrawn.
NTR Focus: Ingrijpen in het klimaat [Intervening in the climate]
December 20, 2023
In this Dutch TV programme, I discuss the risks of solar geoengineering, especially the global governance challenges. A technology, once developed, will be deployed: that is a risk we cannot afford to take.
PBS Weathered: Cool Us or Kill Us? Did Geoengineering Cause a Huge Famine?
October 31, 2023
In this episode of Weathered: Earth’s Extremes (PBS), I argue against the multi-generational intervention that solar radiation modification (SRM) would entail, including unknowable and regionally unequal impacts that could further disadvantage vulnerable regions and populations.
Financial Times: Climate engineering: a quick fix or a risky distraction?
September 1, 2023
In this article, I raise concerns about the rapid normalization of solar radiation management (SRM) technologies, such as stratospheric aerosol injection, without sufficient global debate and political control. I note that this risky geoengineering approach is primarily pushed by a small group of elite institutions and technology investors based largely in the United States. Together with over 300 academics, I have called for an international "non-use agreement" on SRM to prevent its hasty development without fully understanding its potential side effects and global governance challenges.
Time: A Controversial Technology Is Creating an Unprecedented Rift Among Climate Scientists
March 17, 2023
I delved into the escalating debate around stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), where I’ve consistently voiced concerns about its risks and ethical implications. The growing push for SAI research, often funded by influential tech billionaires, has polarized the climate science community, even among colleagues and friends. I emphasized how this technology could deepen global inequalities, distract from urgent emissions reductions, and lead to unpredictable geopolitical consequences. With others, like Frank Biermann, I have helped to organize collective responses, including a widely supported open letter opposing SAI development, to make clear that our focus should remain on addressing the root causes of the climate crisis. This debate isn’t just scientific—it’s about the kind of future we want to build.
​
Front Page Africa: Should “Solar Climate Engineering” Be Used As A Possible Backstop Technology To Fight Climate Change?
February 22, 2022
I argued that solar geoengineering, specifically solar radiation management (SRM), should not be considered a viable future climate policy option, due to profound governance challenges and ethical concerns. I described the governance of SRM as "anticipatory," emphasizing that the object of governance remains uncertain and largely unknowable. This makes it difficult to create effective regulatory frameworks. I believe that relying on such speculative and unproven technologies diverts attention from the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and could introduce new risks to both the environment and vulnerable communities.
Mongabay: Efforts to dim Sun and cool Earth must be blocked, say scientists
January 24, 2022
In this article, I argued that solar geoengineering, particularly solar radiation modification, is a high-risk technology that should be restricted outright. I likened it to human cloning or chemical weapons—technologies that might be feasible but are too dangerous to pursue. I highlighted the lack of global governance mechanisms to prevent individuals, companies, or nations from unilaterally deploying this technology, which could lead to catastrophic environmental and geopolitical consequences. Along with co-signatories of an open letter, I proposed five protective measures, including banning outdoor experiments, patents, and public funding for solar geoengineering technology development. My primary concern is that even researching such speculative technology could detract from the urgent need for decarbonization and create false hopes, delaying essential climate action.
BBC Newsday: interview on SRM
January 18, 2022
In my BBC Newsday interview, I argued that SRM is highly risky techno-adventurism. SRM will yield winners and losers, with a high probability that unequally distributed impacts on weather patterns and food systems will fall on the most vulnerable regions and populations. Even discussing SRM as an option gives major polluters a reason to slow down their efforts to curb carbon emissions.
NRC: Nederland mag nooit inzetten op geo-engineering
[The Netherlands should never commit to solar geoengineering]
January 17, 2022
In an op-ed co-authored with Frank Biermann and Jeroen Oomen, I argue that solar geoengineering should never become part of climate policy, warning that it could serve as an excuse to delay essential emissions reductions. We emphasize that manipulating the Earth's climate in this way is inherently risky and could have unmanageable, unintended consequences. Instead, we advocate for an “International Non-Use Agreement” on geoengineering technologies to prevent them from becoming normalized in climate strategies and policies.
