Nations fail to agree on solar geoengineering regulations

Who could consider themselves qualified to attempt to interfere with the sun’s rays? The African group of countries have an answer: no-one. Overreaction to some slight warming of the globe in the current era is the problem they should be looking at. History tells us such phases come and go, in the long term.
– – –
Governments have failed to agree on how the United Nations should regulate controversial solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, which aim to lessen the effects of climate change by dimming the sunlight reaching Earth, says Climate Home.

At the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi this week, some governments led by the African Group of countries wanted to ban SRM, while others led by Switzerland had pushed to set up an expert panel to research the nascent approach.

As countries were unable to reach consensus at talks on Wednesday, the status quo will continue. SRM is currently legal in most nations.

A start-up called Make Sunsets has been sending sulphur balloons into the sky in the US and Mexico since late 2022 and attempting to sell the claimed climate benefits. On Wednesday, the UK government announced a five-year research programme on delivering “risk-risk analyses” of SRM techniques.

Switzerland had submitted a proposal to the UNEA to set up the first UN expert group to “examine risks and opportunities” of SRM. The panel would have been made up of specialists appointed by governments and representatives of international scientific bodies.

A Swiss government spokesperson told Climate Home that Switzerland is “committed to ensuring that states are informed about these technologies, in particular about possible risks and cross-border effects”.

African nations, on the other hand, were opposed to anything that enables SRM.

In a letter to the chair of the talks, seen by Climate Home, the African Group chair, Alick Muvundika, proposed a global governance mechanism to prevent the use of SRM (or “non-use” in UN parlance), arguing that the risks to the environment are too great and that the option of SRM undermines “real climate solutions”.

Full article here.