A chorus of climate scientists and policy experts has issued a stark warning against calls to ban research into solar geoengineering, arguing that such a move would be scientifically reckless and disproportionately harmful to the world's most climate-vulnerable nations, particularly in Africa.
A Flawed Precautionary Principle
The debate was ignited by a recent editorial suggesting a halt to climate intervention studies, citing fears of a 'termination shock' scenario and wariness of private sector involvement. Bryony Worthington, lead author of the UK's Climate Change Act, strongly criticised this stance. She accused the media of being manipulated by 'western NGOs' whose 'fearmongering and luddism' aim to hold back essential scientific inquiry, drawing parallels with past opposition to genetic modification and nuclear power.
Worthington emphasised that with climate impacts escalating faster than predicted, the range of plausible actions to avert suffering must broaden. 'To evaluate new ideas requires more research – carried out responsibly and transparently,' she stated, arguing that compared to humanity's ongoing atmospheric experiment, exploring planetary reflectivity is a 'tiny, temporary and reversible action' with potential for profound benefit.
The Uncomfortable Necessity of a Stopgap
Echoing this urgency, Professor Hugh Hunt, Deputy Director of the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge, clarified that solar geoengineering is not promoted as a solution, but as a potential 'stopgap'. He pointed to the alarming inadequacy of current efforts, noting: 'What is clear is that the rate at which we are reducing emissions and devising methods to remove carbon dioxide are not fast enough.'
Professor Hunt detailed one approach, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), which involves spraying particles into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight. He explained that significant cooling could be achieved with a relatively small amount of material, but stressed that such ideas are the subject of 'serious research in universities around the world' that takes ethical governance seriously. With carbon dioxide removal schemes needing to scale up to handle 'some 30bn tonnes of CO2 a year' to offset emissions, he warned 'we cannot afford the risk of doing nothing.'
African Voices Silenced in Global Discourse
The editorial's claim to represent a unified African perspective was sharply rebutted by Dr Portia Adade Williams, a senior research scientist from Ghana's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, and Angela Churie Kallhauge of the Environmental Defense Fund. They expressed dismay at the 'homogeneous characterisation of the African continent', which they said silences a diverse range of existing perspectives.
They clarified a critical distinction, noting the current debate conflates 'SRM deployment with research'. The issue, they argue, is about gaining knowledge to prepare for hard future choices, not endorsing deployment now. 'Shutting down any research and dialogue... would diminish agency and increase vulnerability,' they wrote, criticising a broader narrative that 'routinely discounts scientific experts and research networks on the continent'.
They concluded with a powerful reminder: 'Africa has contributed least to the climate crisis and stands to lose the most.' Denying African researchers a seat at the table in shaping these technologies, they argue, is both morally wrong and strategically foolish for the planet's shared future.
