What is the current state of legitimate geoengineering research and how is it regulated?
Executive summary
Legitimate geoengineering research today is limited, heavily contested, and split between cautious academic modeling and a small but growing set of experimental efforts, some backed by private startups; major scientific bodies and some governments call for research to proceed only under strict oversight while many civil-society groups and treaty bodies urge moratoria or bans [1] [2] [3]. Governance is patchwork: international instruments and norms constrain some activities (notably marine interventions), national approaches vary widely, and the United States operates in a regulatory grey zone with multiple agencies exploring roles but no single binding framework for solar geoengineering [3] [4] [5].
1. What "legitimate" geoengineering research looks like and who defines it
Legitimate research is widely framed by scientists and governance scholars as small-scale, transparent, peer-reviewed, and conducted under protocols that assess environmental, health, and social impacts before any field deployment, consistent with the Oxford Principles and academic codes of conduct being promoted by institutions such as the University of Calgary’s governance project [1] [6]. Proponents argue modeling, lab work, and tightly controlled limited field studies are necessary to understand risks and alternatives to catastrophic warming; critics and many NGOs counter that even limited outdoor tests risk normalization and slippery slopes toward deployment, citing decisions like the Convention on Biological Diversity’s moratorium and calls for restrictive regimes [3] [5].
2. Who is doing research and how it is financed
Research remains concentrated in universities and government agencies with modeling and small-scale observational work funded by agencies like NOAA and programs directed by OSTP following congressional directives; NOAA is noted as the only federal agency explicitly funded to study solar radiation modification to date [5]. Parallel to public research, private startups and venture capital have entered the field—most visibly Stardust Solutions—raising concerns because private actors can plan outdoor experiments and seek commercialization in the absence of comprehensive national or international restrictions [2] [7].
3. International rules, norms and treaty constraints
A patchwork of international instruments influences geoengineering: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has imposed moratoria and cautions that limit certain outdoor experiments and commercialization, and the London Convention/Protocol regulates marine interventions and has generated restrictive amendments on ocean-based techniques [3] [4]. However, no multilateral treaty currently exists specifically to govern the full spectrum of solar geoengineering, and many international decisions are non‑binding or unevenly ratified, leaving gaps that critics say enable risky field work [4] [3].
4. The U.S. regulatory landscape: agencies, laws, and gaps
In the United States, authority is dispersed: the EPA is considering whether existing statutes—such as the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act for ocean discharges—or new congressional authorities would apply, OSTP coordinated a federal research plan in 2023, and NOAA has congressional-funded research, but no single statute or agency currently governs solar geoengineering comprehensively, producing a regulatory grey zone [5] [8] [9]. State and local actions add complexity: several states have proposed or passed bans on SRM, and local governments have blocked experiments, highlighting political resistance even as federal guidance lags [10] [9].
5. The debate over risks, ethics, and governance models
Scientific uncertainty about impacts—on stratospheric ozone, regional rainfall patterns, and ecosystems—drives calls for strict governance, independent assessment, public participation, transparency, and governance-before-deployment, but proponents warn that withholding research could leave policymakers blind to potential emergency tools and risks [8] [1]. The agendas are mixed: NGOs and Indigenous advocates emphasize human-rights and biodiversity concerns and advocate enforceable bans [3], while some researchers and think tanks promote regulated research and development pathways to prepare for security and ethical decisions [1] [9].
6. Bottom line and near-term outlook
The field is moving from theory and modeling toward contested field ambition: private actors are accelerating plans that worry regulators and civil society, international treaties constrain some activities but leave enforcement and gaps, and the United States and other countries are still debating whether to create new, centralized governance or rely on existing statutes—meaning legitimate research exists but operates in an unsettled legal and political landscape that will shape whether future work is cautious, commercialized, or curtailed [2] [3] [5].