Geoengineering — Ethics & Governance

Existing international instruments

ENMOD — Ban on hostile environmental modification

The 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) prohibits military or hostile use of environmental modification techniques that have widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. ENMOD therefore already bars deliberate environmental modification as a weapon, though it does not regulate peaceful scientific research per se.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The CBD and its Conference of Parties have repeatedly urged caution on climate-related geoengineering. In 2010 and again in subsequent decisions, the CBD called for risk assessments, transparency, and consideration of biodiversity and social impacts — and highlighted gaps in existing governance that may not be best addressed by the CBD alone.

London Convention / London Protocol (marine geoengineering)

Marine geoengineering (especially ocean fertilization) is constrained by the London Convention/Protocol. In 2013 Contracting Parties adopted amendments and an assessment framework to regulate placement of matter for ocean fertilization and related marine geoengineering activities — effectively restricting large-scale ocean fertilization except under strict, assessed research conditions.

Key ethical questions

• Consent and representation: How can a single state or private actor obtain legitimate consent to deploy a technology that affects other states and future generations?
• Justice and distributional effects: Who benefits and who suffers from regional climate shifts caused by intervention?
• Moral hazard: Could the prospect of geoengineering reduce political will to cut greenhouse-gas emissions?
• Research integrity: What limits should exist for field trials (scale, transparency, environmental assessment)?
• Liability and remediation: Who is responsible if interventions cause harm (cropping failures, ecosystem damage)?

Governance gaps and policy responses

Although several sectoral rules exist (ENMOD, CBD decisions, London Protocol amendments), there is no single comprehensive global treaty that governs solar-radiation management (SRM) such as stratospheric aerosol injection. Scholars and civil society organizations warn of multiple gaps: legal ambiguity about permissible experimentation, weak enforcement, and limited mechanisms for inclusive decision-making. Calls for new governance mechanisms include international moratoria on deployment, multilateral decision procedures for experiments beyond a given scale, and an independent scientific advisory body.

Recent policy trends

In the 2010s and 2020s, multiple international bodies and scientific panels urged a precautionary approach: rigorous risk assessment, transparency, and international dialogue before any field tests or deployment. Some regional bodies and advisory panels have recommended strong limits or moratoria—for example, recent EU scientific advisers have urged strict restrictions or bans on some untested SRM proposals. The debate remains active and politically charged.

Practical governance approaches (proposals)

1. Tiered research governance — small, transparent lab and modelling work; tightly regulated small-scale field tests; multilateral review for anything that could have regional impacts.
2. Global decision-making forum — a UN-hosted process or new treaty body to set deployment rules, ratify liability frameworks, and arbitrate disputes.
3. Environmental and social assessment — mandatory, independent impact assessments including biodiversity, human rights, and indigenous consultation prior to any non-trivial experiment.
4. Transparency & monitoring — public registries of experiments, open data, and independent observation networks.
5. Insurance & liability pools — funding mechanisms to compensate harmed communities or ecosystems.

Role of civil society, scientists, and affected communities

Inclusive governance means empowering voices often excluded from technical debates: communities in the Global South who may bear disproportionate impacts, Indigenous peoples, small island states, and civil society organizations. Many scholars argue that technical experts alone should not decide deployment rules for planetary-scale interventions.

Malone University approach

In the Conspiracy and Governance modules we:

• examine primary legal texts (ENMOD, London Protocol amendments, CBD decisions),
• critically review governance proposals and academic debates,
• simulate multilateral decision scenarios, and
• stress ethical literacy and public engagement as prerequisites to any research program.

Further reading & primary sources

Start with the ENMOD Convention text, CBD COP decisions on climate-related geoengineering, and the London Protocol 2013 amendment for marine geoengineering. Recent policy briefs from civil society and academic reviews summarize current governance options.