Ban geoingineering
Executive summary
Calls to ban solar geoengineering have surged in 2024–25: dozens of U.S. states have introduced or passed laws restricting geoengineering, with reports citing "over 16" and as many as 22 states considering bans in early 2025 [1] [2]. Internationally, some governments and NGOs press for a global non‑use agreement while negotiations at the UN failed to produce a consensus in early 2025, leaving a de facto moratorium and patchwork national rules in place [3] [4].
1. What people mean when they say “ban geoengineering” — a fragmented policy landscape
"Ban geoengineering" ranges from proposals to bar any outdoor experiments and deployment of solar radiation management (SRM) to broader prohibitions covering weather modification and even contrails; some U.S. bills target SRM specifically while others sweep in traditional weather modification like cloud seeding [5] [6]. NGOs such as CIEL call to “ban all outdoor field geoengineering experiments” and to uphold the Convention on Biological Diversity’s de facto moratorium [4]. That variety means a single slogan can mask very different legal scopes and enforcement challenges [4] [5].
2. Domestic politics: why state legislatures are accelerating bans
State-level activity jumped in 2025 as Republican-led legislatures introduced and in some cases passed bills that would criminalize or restrict actions described as geoengineering or weather modification; reporting documents more than a dozen states filing bans in the first months of 2025 and cites 22 bills in some tallies [1] [2]. Motivations range from precaution over environmental and health risks to political signaling and, in several cases, conflation with popular “chemtrails” conspiracy narratives that have influenced lawmakers and public opinion [7] [8].
3. Scientific caution and competing risk assessments
Scientists and policy analysts are divided: many warn of large, uncertain side‑effects — disruptions to precipitation, ozone or regional weather — arguing for strict governance or moratoria [9] [4]. Some research also quantifies potential trade‑offs, such as a study noting that cooling via SRM could avert many heat‑related deaths even while raising other risks like air pollution impacts, illustrating why some experts call for careful research rather than outright bans [1].
4. International negotiations: moratorium, not a ban
At UNEA in Nairobi, countries failed to agree on either a global ban or a research mandate, leaving SRM legal in most jurisdictions but subject to a de facto moratorium agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010 with narrow exceptions for small‑scale research [3]. Some Global South blocs — notably the African Group — have pushed for a non‑use agreement, while other states and actors urged structured research, producing a stalemate that keeps governance fragmented [3] [10].
5. NGOs and advocacy: calls for global non‑use vs. governance frameworks
Environmental groups like OceanCare and legal advocates at CIEL press for a global non‑use agreement and strict enforcement of existing restrictive governance; they frame SRM as a “Pandora’s box” that would undermine climate mitigation and bring irreversible harms [10] [4]. Conversely, some policy and scientific figures argue that governance frameworks — not absolute bans — are needed to decide whether controlled research or limited deployment is ever acceptable [11].
6. The role of misinformation and ‘chemtrail’ politics
Reporting shows that some state bans are entangled with conspiracy thinking about “chemtrails,” and that conflation complicates policy: mainstream scientists stress that commercial contrails are water‑ice and not geoengineering, while some bills and political rhetoric appear driven by public fears rather than documented programs [8] [7]. This dynamic makes measured public debate harder and risks policy driven by misperception rather than technical risk assessment [8] [7].
7. Practical implications of a ban — enforcement and unintended effects
Available sources note that a patchwork of state laws and a lack of a binding international framework means enforcement would be uneven and could either stall research or push it into less transparent settings [6] [3]. CIEL and others argue bans should prevent outdoor experiments; opponents warn that blanket prohibitions might foreclose careful science needed to assess risks and benefits under regulated conditions [4] [11].
8. What to watch next
Monitor state legislatures (many bills introduced in 2025), UNEA and CBD processes for any shift from moratorium toward binding rules, and whether private actors attempt outdoor demonstrations — the EPA notes only one private actor known to have deployed SRM/MCB in the U.S. as of mid‑2025 — all signals that will shape whether bans hold or governance frameworks emerge [6] [2] [3].
Limitations: reporting and advocacy sources differ on technical risk estimates and desired remedies; available sources do not mention a comprehensive, binding global ban in force as of the cited coverage [3] [4].