Scientists have emphasized that five decades of research demonstrate the importance of reducing emissions to prevent dangerous climate change while reaping numerous benefits for both humanity and the planet. In contrast, they argue that Solar Radiation Management (SRM) technologies address only the symptoms of climate change rather than its root causes.
The scientists recommend that the EU reassess its stance on SRM technologies every five to 10 years, ensuring the latest scientific research is considered.
The publication sparked mixed reactions.
Mary Church, who leads geoengineering campaigns for the Center for International Environmental Law, welcomed the call for a nondeployment treaty on SRM but criticized the recommendation, saying it didn’t go far enough. “Reevaluating the position every five years sends conflicting messages about the commitment to preventing solar geoengineering,” she stated. She also urged the EU to withhold funding for outdoor SRM experiments, warning that such activities could normalize “dangerous technologies.”
On the other hand, some experts appreciated the reports for allowing continued research on SRM.
Cynthia Scharf, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based Center for Future Generations think tank, highlighted recent climate-related crises, including catastrophic flooding in Valencia and stalled progress at the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan, as a stark reminder of the climate emergency.
“The floods in Valencia and the inaction at COP29 underscore the severe threats posed by a destabilizing climate,” Scharf said. She called for the EU to fill the leadership void left by the U.S. in addressing climate change. “Now is the time for the EU to step forward. Supporting climate research is a prudent investment in ensuring a safer future for Europe,” she added.
Leave a Reply