Govern Geoengineering – Center for International Environmental Law

Revealed March 5, 2025

By Mary Church, Geoengineering Marketing campaign Supervisor on the Middle for Worldwide Environmental Legislation

That is the second evaluation in a multipart collection exposing the threats and dangers linked to geoengineering and why these applied sciences should not be thought of efficient local weather motion.

Geoengineering — the large-scale manipulation of Earth’s local weather — is commonly framed as an unregulated new frontier, the place an absence of guidelines leaves the door open to harmful experimentation. However that is merely not true. Throughout worldwide regulation, human rights frameworks, and United Nations environmental agreements, a powerful basis for geoengineering governance already exists — and it’s extremely restrictive.

The true challenge shouldn’t be the absence of governance however the rising disregard for the restrictive framework that already exists. Lately, geoengineering proponents have tried to push ahead analysis and area experiments regardless of clear worldwide selections that prohibit or severely restrict its improvement. Even worse, the voluntary carbon markets and selections on the 2024 UN Local weather Convention (COP29) threat making a backdoor for geoengineering commercialization, undermining local weather motion whereas benefiting polluters.

Present restrictive governance that stops geoengineering improvement and deployment should be upheld and enforced within the fast time period. Wanting ahead, this precautionary framework should be the premise for growing any extra agreements and guidelines and finally construct as much as a world ban or nonuse settlement. 

‘The CBD reaffirmed its longstanding moratorium in 2024

Probably the most strong restrictions on geoengineering comes from the United Nations Conference on Organic Range (CBD). Recognizing the grave and doubtlessly irreversible hurt geoengineering might trigger to biodiversity, the CBD had the foresight to handle geoengineering as early as 2008 with a choice that put in place an efficient moratorium on ocean fertilization and was shortly adopted by a wider resolution for a de facto moratorium on all geoengineering in 2010. 

The choice is evident: no geoengineering actions needs to be allowed except there’s strong scientific justification and applicable consideration of the environmental dangers and broader social impacts. International locations have repeatedly reaffirmed the moratorium. In 2016, the CBD first reaffirmed its longstanding moratorium and once more in 2024 on the sixteenth Convention of the Events (COP16) to the CBD attributable to considerations over the proliferation of outside experiments — significantly within the marine atmosphere. Moreover, over 100 organizations supported a press release calling on States to forestall such geoengineering experiments. 

The one exception below the CBD moratorium is for small-scale scientific analysis research carried out in a managed setting, however even that is closely caveated and requires that analysis be: 

Absolutely justified by the necessity to collect particular scientific information 
Topic to environmental impression evaluation
Not trigger transboundary hurt

Moreover, the choice imposing the moratorium stresses that it’s “in line and in keeping with” the sooner resolution on ocean fertilization, which explicitly guidelines out any industrial goal, equivalent to carbon offsetting in such analysis research.

It is uncertain that any of the out of doors area experiments proposed or executed in recent times meet the required threshold. At COP16, international locations explicitly cited concern on the improve in out of doors area experiments in negotiations. 

The London Conference/London Protocol Additionally Restricts Marine Geoengineering

Rising in parallel to the CBD moratorium is a restrictive regime for marine geoengineering on the London Conference/London Protocol (LC/LP), which regulates air pollution and dumping at sea. In 2008, the LC/PC successfully prohibited the deployment of ocean fertilization, and in 2013, it amended the Protocol to permit for the regulation of marine geoengineering. 

International locations below the LC/PC have additional indicated their intention to incorporate 4 extra classes of marine geoengineering that needs to be restricted attributable to their potential for widespread hurt: 

Biomass cultivation and dumping
Ocean alkalinity enhancement 
Marine cloud brightening
Microbubbles

In 2023, governments said that actions “apart from legit scientific analysis needs to be deferred,” as these methods had “the potential for deleterious results which are widespread, long-lasting or extreme” and “there’s appreciable uncertainty concerning their results on the marine atmosphere, human well being, and on different makes use of of the ocean.”

Whereas the Protocol and its modification have but to enter into power, selections of the LC/LP have been accredited by decision and clearly should be applied by international locations. Just like the CBD, the LC/LP additionally has an exemption for what it refers to as “legit scientific analysis” and has adopted pre-screening standards for experiments. Importantly, this exception excludes any tasks with a industrial side — a essential safeguard that ought to stop marine geoengineering from getting used for carbon credit score schemes. 

The Precautionary Precept and the Obligation to Stop Hurt

Each the CBD and the LC/LP selections are primarily based on the precautionary precept enshrined within the UN Rio Declaration. The precautionary precept states that the place there’s scientific uncertainty, actions that would trigger extreme or irreversible hurt shouldn’t be taken. This strategy is extremely relevant within the context of geoengineering applied sciences as a result of they’re unprecedented.,  These applied sciences can by no means be absolutely examined apart from by way of large-scale deployment — with the numerous novel dangers this might generate. 

The duty to not trigger transboundary hurt is extremely related in relation to geoengineering and, once more, is referenced in associated selections of the CBD. That is significantly true in relation to photo voltaic and marine approaches — for the reason that oceans and ambiance know no political borders — and due to the size at which these applied sciences must be applied to realize their meant impression on the local weather. For instance, round 10 p.c of the ocean’s floor could be required for varied marine geoengineering interventions to theoretically have any significant local weather impression, whereas stratospheric aerosol injection proposes massive-scale air pollution of the ambiance over a whole bunch of years. Moreover, modeling reveals that methods equivalent to marine cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection would trigger dangerous impacts that far surpass mere intervention, for instance, interfering with monsoons. Furthermore, such applied sciences increase considerations concerning the challenges of figuring out attribution.  That is significantly related within the context of loss and injury: how will we decide the contribution of local weather change versus any potential future deployment of photo voltaic geoengineering to a selected excessive climate occasion?

UNCLOS and ITLOS Advisory Opinion

Underneath the UN Conference on the Legislation of the Sea (UNCLOS), governments have an obligation to not pollute the marine atmosphere. In 2024, the Worldwide Tribunal for the Legislation of the Sea (ITLOS) issued an Advisory Opinion emphasizing that marine geoengineering might violate UNCLOS if it introduces pollution to the marine atmosphere, in addition to if it has the impact of changing one type of air pollution into one other. Certainly, proposals to dump biomass, minerals, and chemical compounds into the oceans and sequester or retailer carbon dioxide within the marine atmosphere clearly have the potential to do exactly that.

Human Rights Legislation Exposes Geoengineering’s International Dangers

In highlighting “the urgency to implement actions aligned with one of the best out there science, respecting the human proper to a wholesome atmosphere and different human rights,” final 12 months, the UN Particular Rapporteur on the human proper to a clear, wholesome and sustainable atmosphere recognized geoengineering as “worsening the state of affairs, threatening local weather security and thus a wholesome atmosphere.”

Geoengineering runs counter to a variety of human rights obligations, together with:

The precise to a clear, wholesome, and sustainable atmosphere
The precise to life, meals, water, and well being
Indigenous Peoples’ proper to Free Prior and Knowledgeable Consent (FPIC)
The rights of future generations

A 2023 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee report warned that “as a result of [geoengineering approaches] are supposed to be utilized on a world scale, they’ve the potential to have an effect on everybody indiscriminately,” which might adversely impression the human rights of “hundreds of thousands or maybe billions of individuals.” 

The report additionally highlighted that Indigenous Peoples, peasants, rural communities, and other people on the entrance strains of the local weather disaster had been most in danger and that “potential deployment … would have a large and disproportionate impression on Indigenous Peoples whose conventional lands and territories are significantly uncovered and liable to experimental makes use of.”

This factors to the significance of upholding the precept of Free, Prior, and Knowledgeable Consent of Indigenous Peoples, whereas broader rights of entry to info and participation in decision-making are additionally value noting, as is the implausibility of ever absolutely implementing these in relation to geoengineering given its nature and scale.

In the meantime, the Maastricht Ideas on the Rights of Future Generations, a complete framework for understanding how worldwide regulation applies to the human rights of future generations, highlights geoengineering as one among plenty of areas that “pose[s] a fairly foreseeable and substantial threat to the human rights of future generations.”

Taken collectively, worldwide agreements, worldwide customary regulation, and human rights regulation create a broad vary of rules, norms, and obligations squarely relevant to geoengineering, all of that are restrictive and precautionary.

Nevertheless, in apply, what we’re seeing is a proliferation of outside experiments — open-air and open-water — which are deliberate or underway. An evaluation of information aggregated by the Heinrich Böll Basis and ETC Group and introduced by way of the Geoengineering Monitor Map reveals that: 

At the very least 598 out of doors geoengineering experiment trials have been proposed since 1971.
Over 90 p.c had been proposed between 2004 and 2023, and greater than half had been proposed between 2019 and 2023.
Between 2019 and 2023, proposed marine carbon dioxide removing area experiments quadrupled — in comparison with the interval from 2014 to 2018 — and photo voltaic geoengineering experiments tripled. 

A key threat of small-scale out of doors experiments is that they have a tendency to result in expertise improvement and doubtlessly a slippery slope to deployment. 

Carbon Markets an Open Door for Dangerous Geoengineering Applied sciences

This acceleration, significantly of marine carbon dioxide removing experiments, is basically pushed by voluntary carbon markets and the false promise of carbon offsets, with many tasks pre-selling carbon credit regardless of an absence of proof that such methods are efficient within the long-term removing and storage of carbon dioxide. 

At COP29, below questionable circumstances, guidelines for a decade-long contested carbon market mechanism had been accredited that would allow the buying and selling of greenhouse gasoline removals and dangers additional fuelling the expansion of economic geoengineering schemes. 

Nevertheless, each the CBD and the LC/LP clearly rule out tasks with a industrial ingredient or those who promote carbon credit, and Member States to the UN Framework Conference on Local weather Change should interpret their obligations below that regime in alignment with their obligations below different treaties, in addition to the broader rules, norms, and obligations of worldwide regulation. Which means that credit generated by way of geoengineering experiments shouldn’t be allowed to be traded below the local weather regime. 

Geoengineering can by no means be meaningfully examined for its meant impression on the local weather apart from by way of large-scale deployment. These extremely speculative applied sciences do nothing to sort out the basis causes of the local weather disaster and, in reality, threat delaying motion to chop emissions by presenting the false risk of a fast repair. The proposition, subsequently, is to show the Earth right into a laboratory, risking a spread of recent, unpredictable, and doubtlessly irreversible impacts and placing primarily everybody’s elementary human rights in danger. Present governance is extremely precautionary and restrictive, for superb cause, however it’s being undermined by these pushing analysis and experiments. 

Momentum is rising to construct on and strengthen the present governance framework in direction of Non-Use. Greater than 500 main teachers from over 50 international locations are calling for an Worldwide Non-Use Settlement on Photo voltaic Geoengineering, on the premise that such an enterprise could be inconceivable to ever pretty and successfully govern. A non-use settlement would reject deployment, out of doors experiments, and patenting and cease taxpayer funds from supporting the event of photo voltaic geoengineering applied sciences. 

Political assist for Non-Use is growing, with the African Ministerial Convention on the Surroundings and the European Parliament calling for a non-use mechanism, together with assist within the Pacific Islands, led by Vanuatu and Fiji. Germany has additionally expressed its willingness for dialogue on a non-use settlement, whereas the EU backed the Africa Group’s place in the course of the controversial negotiations on photo voltaic radiation administration decision on the sixth session of the United Nations Surroundings Meeting earlier this 12 months. Practically 2000 civil society organizations additionally endorse a non-use settlement. 

Constructing on this momentum, governments ought to:

Implement and implement the CBD’s de facto moratorium on geoengineering on the nationwide and regional ranges and uphold selections of the CBD on geoengineering in different worldwide fora.
Help the improvement of sturdy precautionary regulatory controls below the LC/LP.
Ban all out of doors area geoengineering experiments.
Withhold public assist — together with funding — and cease granting patent rights for geoengineering applied sciences.
Work towards a photo voltaic geoengineering non-use settlement. 

Different evaluation items on this collection embrace: