Overview
Geoengineering, or deliberate human intervention in Earth’s climate system, raises profound ethical and governance challenges. Techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening, and carbon dioxide removal may have large-scale, transboundary impacts. Questions arise about consent, liability, distributional effects, and accountability.
Existing International Frameworks
ENMOD — Environmental Modification Convention
The 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) prohibits hostile environmental modification. While ENMOD does not regulate peaceful geoengineering, it establishes precedent against using climate modification as a weapon.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
The CBD has repeatedly urged precaution regarding geoengineering. Decisions of the Conference of Parties call for environmental risk assessment, transparency, and public participation, particularly for solar radiation management and ocean fertilization.
London Convention / London Protocol
The London Protocol regulates marine geoengineering, including ocean iron fertilization. Amendments adopted in 2013 established risk assessment frameworks and restrictions on large-scale marine interventions.
Ethical Questions
- Consent: How can global or regional populations consent to interventions?
- Justice: Who benefits, and who bears the risk?
- Moral hazard: Could geoengineering reduce incentives to cut emissions?
- Research limits: What rules govern field trials?
- Liability: Who is responsible if harm occurs?
Governance Challenges
There is no single global authority for geoengineering. Governance gaps include:
- Ambiguity in laws for large-scale interventions
- Weak enforcement and monitoring mechanisms
- Limited participation from affected communities, especially in the Global South
Proposed Governance Approaches
- Tiered research governance: small-scale lab studies, regulated field trials, multilateral review for significant experiments
- Global decision-making forums: UN-hosted bodies to oversee deployment, set liability rules, and arbitrate disputes
- Environmental and social assessments: independent reviews including biodiversity and human-rights impacts
- Transparency and monitoring: public registries and open-access data
- Insurance and liability pools: funding to compensate affected communities or ecosystems
Role of Civil Society
Inclusive governance should empower communities potentially affected by geoengineering, civil society groups, Indigenous populations, and NGOs. Scholars stress that decisions about planetary-scale interventions cannot rest solely with technical experts.
Conclusion
Ethical and governance considerations are central to any discussion of geoengineering. International cooperation, precautionary research, and transparency are necessary to ensure responsible exploration of climate intervention technologies.