Earth's energy imbalance – and the language shifting around it
Features in The Economist highlighted a concept that is gaining traction in SRM discussions: Earth's energy imbalance. The planet is reflecting less sunlight each year – through declining cloud cover, melting ice, and a reduction in reflective aerosol pollutants – and absorbing more energy as a result. Climate Trunk published a useful illustration.
This idea is prompting new ways of talking about SRM. In a new primer, Reflective describes SRM as a way to balance the ledger. Separately, Ben Lachman and Paul Gambill champion the term "climate stabilisation" in a new report, describing it as a "risk-first" framing that positions SRM alongside other climate interventions.
Writing for African Tech Futures, Holly Buck argues that while a container term for new forms of climate intervention could be useful, “stabilisation” is a poor choice – it implies the climate can be held steady and brought under control, obscures questions of power and equity, and is being shaped by a narrow set of actors far removed from the communities most affected.
Also in African Tech Futures, Trisha Patel, Grace Tamble, Jessica Seddon, and Rose Mutiso argue that the field needs "a new taxonomy of climate interventions". They suggest a more precise vocabulary and wider field of view.
Governance frameworks emerge – from parliament, academia, and beyond
In the UK, the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published a research briefing on SRM governance, reviewing past proposals and setting out policy options. These include using the UK's research position to open international dialogue, reviewing monitoring capacity for oversight of unauthorised activity, defining what counts as "SRM research" at different scales, and expanding public engagement.
In the US, the picture is more fractured. Politico reports that a new conservative group called The GeoFight is preparing lawsuits against weather modification activities. The group describes its mission as to "pursue legal accountability for geoengineering and weather modification programs". This follows a trend of US states proposing bills to ban solar geoengineering activities. See the latest in our US Bans tracker.
However, a report authored by Craig Segall and Tracy Hester proposes an alternative: states issuing permits for outdoor experiments rather than seeking outright bans, which could help develop regulatory frameworks for future climate technologies. We took a closer look at the proposal in a recent edition of Reflections, our weekly LinkedIn newsletter.
Meanwhile, a quote from George David Banks at an Aspen Institute panel was reported in E&E News as pitching SRM as a way to continue fossil fuel use. The full panel recording tells a more nuanced story: Banks described it as an argument politicians could hypothetically make. We spoke to Banks earlier this year for our news article on SRM reports emerging from the US right.
In an episode of the BBC's Radical podcast, David Keith argues that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is ready to begin ramping up slowly, rather than waiting for comprehensive governance structures to be in place. He suggests that carefully managed, limited deployment is unlikely to produce catastrophic outcomes and that the main barriers are political rather than technical – though he acknowledges the risk of undermining emissions cuts.
From the research community, O'Loughlin & Visioni propose a framework for assessing whether small-scale outdoor SRM experiments are worth pursuing, centred on scientific rigour, safety, usefulness, engagement, and transparency. They argue that research governance focused on reducing bias and building stable scientific norms is more productive than appeals to urgency.
The Global South builds its evidence base |
