Solar radiation management governance

This initiative aims to ensure that any geoengineering research that goes ahead, inside or outside the laboratory, is environmentally sound.

This page is archived

Links to external sources may no longer work as intended. The content may not represent the latest thinking in this area or the Society’s current position on the topic.

Project details

The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) was a partnership between the Royal Society and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

The project report, launched on 1 December 2011, reviews the progress made by the Initiative to date, covering the international SRMGI conference held in March 2011. It reviews the different perspectives and governance possibilities, without picking winners, in order to open up discussion of the complex issues raised by solar geoengineering.

The initiative aimed to ensure that any geoengineering research that goes ahead – inside or outside the laboratory – is conducted in a manner that is responsible, transparent and environmentally sound.

Proposed geoengineering techniques that reflect the sun’s light and heat back into space may offer valuable opportunities to reduce global warming, and could do so quite rapidly, but their impacts could also affect rainfall, regional weather patterns and ocean currents. These impacts would not be restricted by national boundaries, so actions in one country could have highly significant effects in another, for example by changing rainfall and so affecting agriculture and water supply.

The Initiative engaged with a variety of organisations from across the globe in order to foster an open international dialogue on how research should be governed. Participants included NGOs concerned with natural and social science, governance, legal issues, environment and development, plus industry and civil society organisations. This ensured that evidence and opinion was sought from a wide range of stakeholders with appropriate expertise. It was hoped that the international links developed by SRMGI – an important dimension of the project – would help promote cooperation on research governance in the future.


Nations, NGOs and individuals must engage in a wide-ranging dialogue to explore both the potential risks and benefits of solar geoengineering and establish effective governance arrangements for research, according to a this report from an international collaboration of NGOs: the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI).

SRMGI was convened by the Royal Society, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS).

SRMGI was established in March 2010 to explore how to govern the developing research area of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), a type of geoengineering that would cause a small percentage of inbound sunlight to be reflected back into space, in order to reduce global warming.

Interest in SRM technologies increased rapidly in the years up to the launch of the Initiative in 2010, as their potential to be both useful and/or harmful to the planet has been recognised. SRM methods may be able to reduce temperatures quickly and relatively cheaply. However, these technologies could also have significant unanticipated side effects. Moreover, they would not affect the cause of climate change, rising levels of greenhouse gases, and the associated threat of ocean acidification and could conceivably be implemented unilaterally, without consultation or agreement from all individuals and nations that could be affected.

SRMGI has brought together diverse opinions and expertise from the fields of natural sciences, social science, governance and law, as well as environmental and development NGOs, industry and civil society organisations, from across the globe to discuss this issue. Following a major conference in March 2011, this report summarises the opinions gathered and the issues raised from this and other meetings, including input from experts and organisations from 22 different countries.


Conclusions included:

  • Nothing now known about SRM techniques provides any justification for reducing efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gases and this should remain a global priority.
  • Concern about geoengineering, and particularly SRM methods, is significant and it is important to ensure that all perspectives and interests can be expressed and discussed. In addition to misgivings regarding potential side effects, concern is often expressed that geoengineering could be seen to provide an escape route from the impacts of climate change, thus reducing the incentive to reduce emissions.
  • SRM technologies would take effect relatively quickly and their cost could be comparatively low, and they could reduce some of the most significant effects of climate change. However, the technologies are poorly understood, have the potential to be dangerous and there are risks associated not only with deployment but also medium and large-scale research.
  • Appropriate research will make it easier to assess the feasibility, risks and impacts associated with SRM, and to reduce the uncertainties. A lack of information about SRM technologies and their potential impacts is making the issues more difficult to debate and resolve at present.
  • The range of SRM research runs from computer simulations and laboratory studies right up to potentially risky, large-scale experiments in the real world. While most SRMGI participants were comfortable with low risk research, there was much debate over how to govern any research outside the lab.
  • Governance arrangements for managing any potentially risky research are mostly lacking and must be developed. Initial discussions suggest that the wide differences among the types of SRM technologies and types of research make a “one size fits all” approach inappropriate, and a differentiated regulatory and governance approach is likely to be more effective.
  • Considering the actual deployment of SRM techniques would be inappropriate without, among other things, adequate resolution of uncertainties concerning the feasibility, advantages and disadvantages. No future technology should be implemented without a thorough characterisation of its potential environmental and social impacts and appropriate governance arrangements.

At the time of publication, Professor John Shepherd, Fellow of the Royal Society and a co-chair of SRMGI, said: “Unless the apparent lack of political will to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions changes soon, geoengineering may be needed and SRM methods could be used in unregulated and possibly reckless ways by individuals, corporations or individual countries. These actions would have consequences beyond national borders that are as yet unknown. We must also work outside our national borders, bringing together interested parties from around the globe to debate the issues of geoengineering, agree appropriate governance structures and ensure that any research is undertaken in a safe, transparent and socially acceptable manner. The question of whether solar geoengineering will prove to be helpful or harmful will largely depend on how humanity can govern the issue and its political implications, and avoid unilateral action.”