Giulia Neri / May 2026
Image: Shutterstock
On 21 April the Foreign Affairs Council gave an important and timely signal on the need for rules governing Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). With a US-Israeli start-up raising tens of millions to develop patented technologies they plan to sell to governments, SRM is no longer a hypothetical research question — it is becoming a market. Europe learned the hard way with AI what happens when governance trails behind private investment. Member States are right not to repeat that mistake, and to insist that technologies with the power to reshape the global climate are governed in the collective interest, with evidence that is independent, transparent, and publicly accountable.
The Council's language does not come out of the blue. In December 2024, the European Commission's chief scientific advisors recommended an EU-wide deployment moratorium alongside responsible research and a global governance system — the first formal EU-level guidance on SRM. Today's statement builds on that, calling for the precautionary principle to be fully applied and committing to discussions on international governance, including on research. These are sensible steps. But a moratorium on deployment is not — and should not become — a moratorium on research. The two must be clearly distinguished. Responsible, publicly funded research designed to answer policymakers' questions is precisely what makes responsible governance possible.
Foreign ministers should start by using their commitment to international governance to open structured dialogue with the countries most exposed to climate risk. African states have called three times since 2023 for the non-use of solar geoengineering. Pacific island nations have echoed those calls. These positions deserve direct engagement, not acknowledgement from a distance. If SRM were ever deployed, its effects would not respect borders — and the governance conversation cannot remain a northern one. A coordinated EU approach to science diplomacy on SRM, particularly with countries that have limited research capacity and greater climate exposure, would be a credible and immediate use of today's mandate.
The private sector, meanwhile, is not waiting. Stardust Solutions, an Israeli-US startup, raised $60 million last year — the largest-ever venture round for a geoengineering company — and earlier this month released guiding principles that, as my colleague Cynthia Scharf told The Atlantic, amounted to reassuring language about transparency and safety without the substance to match. The company still has not disclosed what its proprietary particle actually is. Meanwhile, US startup Make Sunsets has been selling "cooling credits" and launching sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere from weather balloons with no government approval. As private investment grows and tech-sector philanthropy accounts for an increasing share of research funding, the pressure on companies to overstate the safety of their products is intensifying. This is exactly the dynamic that makes independent, publicly accountable research essential.
Yet Europe currently does have limited in-house expertise on this topic, and relies on others' knowledge. It does not have the capability to detect whether another state is testing these technologies. Total EU funding explicitly directed at stratospheric aerosol injection research amounts to less than €7 million over more than a decade. To put that in perspective: current global SRM research represents less than 1% of climate research funding, which itself accounts for roughly 2% of all scientific research grants — meaning SRM receives approximately €2 out of every €10,000 spent on research. The UK and the US have both funded significantly more. If the EU wants to shape the governance of this technology in line with European values and global equity, it needs its own evidence base — not borrowed conclusions.
The next IPCC report, due in 2029, is expected to examine SRM from a climate and environmental perspective, though the scope of that assessment remains unclear. That will be too late. If science is not brought into the governance conversation from the outset, decisions will be driven by security concerns and competition over technological control rather than by evidence. These are among the findings of CFG's SAFEGEOGOV project, which we are conducting with the University of Leeds and the OECD to explore governance scenarios through to 2035.
Interest in SRM reflects a growing sense of desperation as the world tracks toward a 3°C rise in temperature. Let us be clear: it is unacceptable to consider deployment of SRM at this time, given the serious risks and many uncertainties involved. SRM is not a solution to the climate crisis, and it is not a substitute for the urgent decarbonisation of the global economy and strengthened adaptation. But future leaders may face an agonising choice: whether the risks of intervening in the climate system are greater or lesser than the risks of letting temperatures rise unchecked. What we do today determines whether they make that choice equipped with independent evidence and legitimate governance frameworks — or without either.
Last month's statement is a political signal. The question is what follows. Europe has committed to governing this technology. That commitment now needs a research agenda to inform it, structured diplomacy for international cooperation, and the institutional will to see it through.
