“Fifty years of scientific research indicate that reducing … emissions would help us avoid dangerous climate change while also bringing multiple additional benefits for the people and the planet. SRM technologies, by contrast, address the symptoms but not the source of the climate problem,” the scientists write.
The EU should reevaluate its positions on SRM every five to 10 years to ensure the latest research is considered, the scientists added.
Reactions to the publication were mixed.
Mary Church, geoengineering campaign manager for the Center for International Environmental Law, said that the recommendation for a nondeployment treaty was “encouraging” but did not go far enough.
“Reviewing the position every five years sends very mixed signals about commitment to preventing the use of solar geoengineering,” she said, adding that the EU should rule out funding for outdoor SRM experiments as they “risk normalizing these dangerous technologies.”
Others were relieved that the reports kept the door open to more research.
“The floods in Valencia and the lack of progress in Baku underscore the grave dangers we face as the climate unravels,” said Cynthia Scharf, a senior fellow at the Brussels-based Center for Future Generations think tank, referring to October’s flooding disaster in Spain and the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan.
“With the U.S. stepping back from climate leadership, now is the time for [the] EU to step forward,” she added. “Research is a sound investment in a safe Europe.”