Franzoni Martina (Junior Researcher G.E.O Environment)
Abstract
Climate change is accentuating the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, prompting the scientific and policy community to consider innovative options for mitigating their effects. One of these is climate geoengineering, a set of techniques aimed at modifying or controlling the Earth’s climate. If the mitigation actions implemented so far do not prove effective (as is already emerging from the latest COPs), the use of climate-modifying technologies may become necessary. While we are now not far from the implementation of such tools, the international community has not yet found consensus around this issue. Indeed, while climate manipulation research is advancing at a considerable pace, it is policy that is not following the same pace.
This article analyzes the main geoengineering strategies, with a focus on carbon removal and solar radiation modification (SRM), assessing their historical evolution, current state of development and geopolitical implications.
Introduction
Global warming is the main challenge facing the international community as a whole. Current mitigation policies are not achieving sufficient results to contain the rise in temperatures within the limits set by the Paris Agreement. Therefore, a growing interest is emerging in climate geoengineering, a still controversial field that proposes the use of technologies to directly intervene in the Earth’s climate system. The two main categories of intervention include removing atmospheric carbon and modifying solar radiation. These techniques, while theoretically promising, raise complex scientific, ethical and geopolitical questions.
Introduction to climate geoengineering
Extreme weather events are becoming increasingly frequent in many areas of the Earth. Climate geoengineering is one particularly innovative tool aiming at mitigating the negative effects of climate change. . The term refers to a set of interventions in the climate system through which the climate can be modified or controlled. Solar radiation modification and carbon dioxide removal are among the most famous strategies in this field.
- Techniques for removing carbon from the atmosphere: Carbon capture technologies are methods and systems used to extract carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air or from gases produced by industrial and energy activities in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and combat climate change. These technologies can safely store CO₂ or reuse it for other processes. Currently, companies such as Shell and startups such as Carbon Engineering are working on similar technologies.
- Solar radiation management techniques (SRM): is a set of techniques and technological interventions aimed at changing the Earth’s energy balance to counteract global warming. Specifically, these techniques aim to reflect some of the solar radiation back into space or reduce its absorption by the Earth’'s atmosphere, with the goal of lowering the planet's average temperature. Examples of techniques include injection of aerosols into the stratosphere, sea cloud modification, space mirrors.
Climate geoengineering between history and current events
As early as 1965, within a presidential briefing directed to President Lyndon B. Johnson, voluntary climate manipulation was seen as one of the few solutions to climate change. More than fifty years later, climate modification technologies are advancing more and more.
Currently, among the countries that are conducting the most studies in relation to geo-engineering is the United Arab Emirates. It has been since the 1980s that the UAE has seen cloud seeding as an effective way to remedy their critical water shortage. This technique involves firing a rocket containing salt inside a cloud; the salt attracts water, the water droplets collide with each other, grow larger and then fall as rain. The first official attempt at cloud seeding was in 1982. Since then, , the UAE has been collaborating with NASA and other international agencies on the subject. Recently the National Center of Meteorology (NCN) has been collaborating with Mauritania, Pakistan, and Ethiopia, and plans a future partnership with Egypt as well. As technology evolves, efforts are being made to use drones and AI to target clouds. To date, the National Center of Meteorology in Abu Dhabi, uses four Beechcraft King Air C90 aircraft, which depart from Al Ain Airport in Abu Dhabi, and carry out between 300 and 350 missions each year. The planes launch rockets made of natural salts, mainly potassium chloride, toward the base of the clouds. In addition, cloud insemination is also cheaper than desalination (Eva Levesque, UAE ramps up cloud seeding to combat water shortage, Arabian Gulf Business Insight, 05 February 2025). Research regarding insemination will need to be accompanied by a series of studies regarding the ability to predict the amount of rain generated and studies regarding the ability of the soil to absorb that amount of rain. New infrastructure such as dams or aquifers may need to be built to manage the phenomenon, preventing it from generating flooding or habitat destruction.
Cloud seeding today is also a particularly popular practice in the United States, in areas such as California where it would allow for increased water supplies; local officials from Wyoming to Mumbai carry out summer seeding to provide rain for farmers.
An emblematic example of the use of geo-climate engineering techniques can also be found in the military: Operation Popeye in the context of the Vietnam War in 1974. The goal of the Operation was to prolong the monsoon season in Vietnam by manipulating the climate through the technique of cloud seeding, with the ultimate scope of destabilizing the enemy. The monsoon season was particularly feared by the U.S. military, and by 1966 when the experiments began, the war had been going on for several years and U.S. casualties stood at 8,000 soldiers. Field observations led to learning of the negative effects of monsoon rain and humidity on the enemy’s logistical apparatus. The purpose of the Operation was thus to worsen the condition of roads, rivers and make the enemy’s mobility impassable. In 1967 the operational phase began, but despite 80 experiments their effectiveness has yet to be proven. Official documents show that the effectiveness of the project was certainly limited.
The U.S. administration of the time did not immediately recognize the climate modification action; only later were documents on Operation Popeye declassified and the use of cloud seeding techniques confirmed.
The geopolitical risks of climate engineering
The development and advancement of geoengineering techniques could intensify interstate disputes if not accompanied by appropriate international governance. In this regard, the innovation of these techniques is attracting the interest of the U.S. Congress, which has called for the development of a research plan to explore the human and societal consequences (Scott Moore, Carig Martin, Navigating the Geopolitical Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Keliman Center for Energy Policy, 30 July 2024).
The idea of solar geoengineering was born in 1991, following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. That phenomenon launched tons of gas and dust particles into the atmosphere. Those particles cooled global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius. But this then changed the air jet, leading to an unusually warm winter in northern Europe while the Middle East froze over. Starting with a natural fact, scholars wondered if they could have created it artificially. The problem lies in the fact that such an intervention in the climate could create undesirable effects in other parts of the world. For example, there could be reduced rainfall in some regions or mid-latitudes such as the Sahel.
In addition, a major problem behind solar geoengineering techniques is their low cost. The fact that they are economically viable would lead states to behave like free riders. These techniques could be used by states as small as the Maldives but highly exposed to climate change. The risk lies in the fact that these aerosols are in the atmosphere, they disperse fairly evenly, and the effect on blocking solar radiation would be global. So it would act in one place on the planet, but the impact would be worldwide, and it could also have negative consequences in some areas. A consequent risk is the fact that some states might interpret unilateral climate modification action as a threat to national security, or even as a threat to international peace.
To bring some examples, China’s large-scale climate modification project, Tianhe, could have security implications for neighboring countries, including India and other South and Southeast Asian states. The Tianhe project aims to alleviate drought conditions in northern China, where rainfall is low and river levels are falling. The implementation of such initiatives could thus have profound consequences for the region’s ecological stability, livelihoods, economic conditions, social dynamics, and human security.
As early as 2018, an Iranian official accused Israel of manipulating the climate to cause droughts on Iranian soil.
The issue of geoengineering could thus become yet another card to be used to exacerbate even pre-existing disputes between some states.
Interest in geoengineering strategies is growing strongly, but to make sure that this intervention is implemented in the best possible way, there needs to be strong coordination on the study and implementation of these strategies. In October 2024, guidelines on the subject were published by the American Geophysical Union, with the goal of ensuring responsible use of climate manipulation technologies (Lisa Graumlich, “Geoengineering: building ethics, transparency and inclusion into climate intervention research”, World Economic Forum, 03 October 2024). The document came about after two years of study and involved scientists, policymakers, ethicists, nongovernmental organizations, and civil society. According to the study, these are some basic principles that should guide geoengineering:
- Responsible research: Research that seeks to change the climate should not be seen as a way to avoid reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those doing such research need to explain clearly and openly why they are doing it. Moreover, it must consider not only the immediate risks, but also all the larger, long-term effects, such as those on the environment, society, politics, and people’s health, especially if these solutions were to be used on a large scale.
- The centrality of climate justice: before implementing a climate engineering solution, it should be ensured that it does not generate negative impacts towards other groups. Therefore, an analysis of the risks that could occur to society, the economy, the environment, and future generations must be conducted before implementation.
- Inclusive public participation: in order to understand any risks to society, social groups should also be involved in the research so that a discussion of the purpose and design of the research can be facilitated. Free and informed consent should also be obtained from indigenous peoples who may be subject to geo-engineering measures.
- Transparency in public or private funding of research
- Informed governance: an independent body should be created to evaluate research proposals and the possible risks they may pose.
It is also necessary the creation of an effective international legal framework to deal with the issue. there are already treaties that prohibit climate manipulation for military purposes, such as the Convention on Environmental Modification, passed by the United Nations in 1976 and entered into force in 1978, which prohibits any “action taken by military or hostile forces that would cause ”earthquakes, tsunamis; ecological imbalances in a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in weather patterns; alterations in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere." However, the lack of research transparency makes this Convention ineffective; experiments could be conducted without the rest of the international community knowing about them, and this would quietly allow states to disobey the Convention.
At the level of civilian use, current governance systems, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, focus precisely on emissions mitigation, and do not contemplate or regulate the modification of solar radiation or SAI. Other relevant treaties, such as the Montreal Protocol on Ozone, also do not offer legal means to limit or hold accountable states or non-state actors that would act unilaterally.
The idea of geoengineering, almost a taboo in international climate negotiations, such as those at the COP, mainly because of the moral hazard: they fear it will slow down efforts to reduce emissions. Switzerland’s very cautious proposal, which only called for the formation of a group of experts to better study SAI, was rejected at the UN Environment Assembly in 2022 or 2023. This is evidence of how strong the debate is and how real are the risks of tensions and geopolitical conflicts related to these technologies.
It is important to specify that geoengineering cannot be considered a definitive solution to climate change, as it does not solve the root cause of the Earth’s rising temperature. If the use of such techniques were to be discontinued in the future once its use was entrenched, it would suddenly return to previous temperature levels. Therefore, the decision to use these types of technologies should also consider the burden this choice would place on future generations.
The real challenge today is climate change and how it is affecting global water resources. In places like Cape Town, where water is running out, and in many areas affected by floods and droughts, we are realizing how little we really know about the atmosphere. New climate-intervening technologies will continue to develop, but more than immediate solutions, they should push us to ask deeper questions.
Conclusion
Climate geoengineering could thus become an increasingly practical option in response to the failure of current climate change mitigation policies. However, the technologies analyzed, from carbon capture to cloud modification, pose a number of crucial questions of climate justice, global security, and intergenerational responsibility. In particular, examples of unilateral climate use show how climate manipulation can become a factor in geopolitical tensions. Despite scientific advancement, there is still a lack of global consensus on an effective legal framework regarding climate geoengineering. International institutions have not yet developed adequate legal instruments to effectively and transparently address the challenges posed by these technologies. Therefore, there is an urgent need to promote inclusive, transparent and ethical governance, as only a coordinated approach, including scientific communities, policymakers and civil society, will ensure that these technologies are used equitably and not as new sources of inequality and controversy.
Riproduzione riservata ®
Bibliography
(B-2) Amuliya Skaria, Climate Chess: The Global Power Play of Geoengineering, Raisina House, 02 July 2024. https://raisinahouse.org/climate-change/f/climate-chess-the-global-power-play-of-geoengineering
(A-1) Benjamin K.Sovacool, Chad Baum, Sean Low, The next climate war? Statecraft, security and weaponization in the geopolitics of a low-carbon future, Energy Strategy Reviews, Vol.45, January 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X22002255
(B-1) Doug Irving, “Manipulating the climate; what are the geopolitical risks?”, RAND, 29 December 2021. https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2021/manipulating-the-climate-what-are-the-geopolitical-risks.html
(B-2) Eleanor Cummins, With Popeye, the U.S government made weather an instrument of war, Popular Science, 20 March 2018. https://www.popsci.com/operation-popeye-government-weather-vietnam-war/
(A-1) Eva Levesque, UAE ramps up cloud seeding to combat water shortage, Arabian Gulf Business Insight, 05 February 2025. https://www.agbi.com/analysis/sustainability/2025/02/uae-cloud-seeding-water-scarcity-dubai/
(A-1) Lisa Graumlich, “Geoengineering: building ethics, transparency and inclusion into climate intervention research”, World Economic Forum, 03 October 2024. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/geoengineering-building-ethics-transparency-inclusion-climate-research/
(B-1) Shannon O’Lear, Madisen K.Hane, Abigail P.Neal, Lauren Louise M.Stallings, Sierra Wadood, Jimin Park, Environmental Geopolitics of Climate Engineering Proposals in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report, Frontiers, 16 September 2021. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.718553/full
(A-1) Scott Moore, Carig Martin, Navigating the Geopolitical Risks of Solar Geoengineering, Keliman Center for Energy Policy, 30 July 2024. https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/navigating-the-geopolitical-risks-of-solar-geoengineering/
(A-1) Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modif
ication techniques, United Nations Organizations, 05 October 1978. https://disarmament.unoda.org/enmod/
Content Information
1 Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic. |
2 Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic. |
3 Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |
Trustworthiness of the source
A Trustworthy | No doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence; has a history of total trustworthiness. |
B Normally trustworthy | Small doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence, nevertheless has a history of valid information in a majority of cases. |
C Sufficiently trustworthy | Doubts about authenticity, reliability or competence; however, has supplied valid information in the past. |
D Normally not trustworthy | Significant doubt about authenticity, reliability or competence, however has supplied valid information in the past. |
E Not trustworthy | Lack of authenticity, reliability or competence; history of invalid information. |
F Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information. |