Geoengineering Governance:
Laws and Policies to Watch

As the world grapples with the escalating impacts of climate change, geoengineering has emerged as a controversial yet potentially transformative set of technologies aimed at deliberately altering Earth’s systems to counteract global warming. From solar radiation management (SRM) to carbon dioxide removal (CDR), these interventions promise to mitigate climate risks but also pose complex ethical, environmental, and geopolitical challenges.

Given the profound implications of geoengineering on global ecosystems and societies, robust governance frameworks are critical. This article explores current and emerging laws, policies, and international efforts shaping the governance of geoengineering technologies. Understanding these regulatory landscapes is essential for scientists, policymakers, and civil society as they navigate the delicate balance between innovation and precaution.

Understanding Geoengineering

Geoengineering broadly refers to large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system designed to reduce or reverse climate change effects. These technologies fall into two main categories:

• Solar Radiation Management (SRM): Techniques that reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into space to cool the planet. Examples include stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening.
• Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR): Methods that actively remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it securely. These include afforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture, and ocean fertilization.

While CDR is often seen as less risky due to its similarity to natural carbon sinks, SRM raises significant concerns about unintended climatic side effects, governance complexities, and ethical dilemmas.

The Governance Challenge

Geoengineering governance must address multiple challenges:

• Global Commons: Climate is a shared resource; unilateral deployment risks transboundary impacts.
• Uncertainty: Scientific uncertainties about risks and effectiveness complicate regulation.
• Ethics: Moral questions arise over human manipulation of nature.
• Equity: Vulnerable countries may bear disproportionate risks or benefits.
• Liability: Assigning responsibility for unintended consequences remains unresolved.

These factors demand an integrated approach combining international law, national policies, stakeholder engagement, and transparency.

International Governance Frameworks

Several international treaties and institutions influence geoengineering governance, although no dedicated global regime currently exists.

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The CBD plays a pivotal role in regulating geoengineering activities that affect biodiversity. Since 2010, through decisions like COP10/29 and COP13/14, parties have expressed caution toward geoengineering techniques that may impact biological diversity, particularly ocean fertilization. The CBD calls for precautionary approaches and environmental impact assessments before deployment.

London Convention/London Protocol (LC/LP)

The LC/LP regulates marine pollution through dumping controls. In recent years, it has addressed ocean fertilization by classifying certain activities as “dumping” requiring permits. In 2013, parties adopted amendments to control ocean fertilization activities under the Protocol, emphasizing environmental protection while allowing legitimate scientific research under strict conditions.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Although UNFCCC does not explicitly regulate geoengineering yet, it provides a platform for discussing climate mitigation options. The Paris Agreement’s emphasis on mitigation and adaptation opens space for considering CDR approaches aligned with emission reduction targets. However, SRM remains largely outside UNFCCC’s current scope due to its controversial nature.

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)

While not directly related to geoengineering, CLRTAP mechanisms could become relevant if SRM methods like aerosol injections impact air quality across borders.

Emerging International Initiatives

Recognizing regulatory gaps, several initiatives aim to foster responsible geoengineering governance:

• The Oxford Principles: A set of guidelines proposed in 2010 advocating transparency, public participation, independent assessment, and governance before deployment.
• The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): Facilitates scientific collaboration but also informs policymakers by assessing potential impacts.
• The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI): Promotes dialogues on multidimensional governance frameworks.
• The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI): An international collaborative platform exploring governance options for SRM research.

These efforts highlight growing awareness that proactive legal frameworks are necessary before any large-scale deployment.

National Policies and Regulations

Countries vary widely in their approach to geoengineering governance. Some have started developing legal frameworks or guidelines addressing research and potential deployment.

United States

In the U.S., no comprehensive federal law governs geoengineering explicitly; however:

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates some aspects under existing pollution laws.
• The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) oversees ocean-related experiments.
• Several legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress calling for oversight mechanisms but have yet to become law.
• Research funding is cautiously expanding under agencies like the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF), with increasing emphasis on ethical considerations.

European Union

The EU has taken a precautionary stance:

• The European Commission supports research under Horizon Europe with strict ethical scrutiny.
• Member states apply their environmental laws to regulate experimental activities.
• The EU Parliament has called for an international moratorium on SRM deployment until governance structures are in place.

China

China is emerging as a key actor in geoengineering research:

• Chinese institutions conduct studies on cloud seeding and CDR technologies.
• Regulatory frameworks remain nascent but are expected to evolve in line with China’s broader climate goals.
• International cooperation is encouraged alongside domestic policy development.

Other Countries

Nations such as Canada, Australia, India, and several in Latin America are increasingly engaging in discourse about potential geoengineering roles aligned with sustainable development goals. However, formal policies remain sparse or fragmented.

Legal Considerations Underpinning Geoengineering Governance

Several core legal principles shape geoengineering regulation:

Precautionary Principle

Given scientific uncertainty about risks, this principle mandates cautious action when potential harm is suspected despite incomplete evidence. It supports moratoriums or stringent controls on deployment activities until safety is confirmed.

Sovereignty and Transboundary Harm

States hold sovereign rights over their territories but must avoid actions causing significant transboundary environmental damage. Geoengineering interventions affecting other countries’ climates implicate this principle under customary international law.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Many jurisdictions require EIAs before projects likely to affect the environment significantly. Applying EIAs to geoengineering research can help identify risks early and guide decision-making processes transparently.

Public Participation and Consent

Inclusive decision-making involving affected communities enhances legitimacy. Indigenous peoples’ rights must be respected where interventions intersect with traditional lands or resources.

Liability and Compensation

Mechanisms assigning responsibility and remedies for damage from geoengineering are needed but currently underdeveloped internationally. Clarifying liability promotes accountability.

Challenges Ahead: Bridging Gaps Between Innovation and Regulation

Despite growing attention, critical challenges hamper effective geoengineering governance:

• Lack of Binding International Instruments: Existing treaties address some aspects but do not comprehensively govern all forms of geoengineering.
• Fragmented National Approaches: Divergent policies risk regulatory arbitrage or conflicting practices.
• Limited Public Engagement: Outreach remains insufficient in many regions despite broad societal stakes.
• Enforcement Difficulties: Monitoring clandestine or unilateral deployments poses technical and diplomatic obstacles.
• Balancing Research Freedom vs Precaution: Overly restrictive rules may stifle scientific progress; lax regulation could cause harm.

Addressing these requires coordinated global leadership coupled with adaptive governance models that evolve alongside scientific advancements.

Recommendations for Strengthening Geoengineering Governance

Experts suggest several pathways forward:

1. International Treaty Development: Negotiating a dedicated legally binding instrument encompassing all major types of geoengineering could provide clear rules.
2. Establishing an Oversight Body: A multilateral entity tasked with monitoring experiments and deployments could enhance transparency.
3. Promoting Open Science: Data sharing standards ensure knowledge dissemination while safeguarding sensitive information.
4. Enhancing Multi-stakeholder Dialogue: Civil society inclusion helps reflect diverse values and prevent power imbalances.
5. Integrating Geoengineering into Climate Policy Frameworks: Aligning initiatives with UNFCCC goals supports coherence in climate action strategies.
6. Developing Liability Regimes: Defining responsibility upfront reduces conflicts post-deployment incidents.
7. Encouraging Capacity Building: Support developing countries in understanding risks and participating meaningfully in governance processes.

Conclusion

Geoengineering represents both a beacon of hope for addressing climate change’s toughest challenges and a source of profound uncertainty requiring vigilant oversight. While scientific progress accelerates rapidly, legal frameworks remain nascent and fragmented. The future of responsible geoengineering hinges on crafting inclusive laws and policies that uphold precaution without stifling innovation—ensuring humanity’s intervention in Earth’s systems is conducted transparently, equitably, and sustainably.

As global discourse intensifies ahead of upcoming international climate negotiations, keeping a close watch on evolving regulations will be essential for stakeholders seeking to responsibly harness or regulate these powerful technologies. The path forward demands collaboration across governments, scientists, civil society, and indigenous peoples alike—an endeavor as complex as the planetary systems geoengineering aims to influence.