Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Solar radiation modification
open-in-new
<h2 id="context">Context</h2> <p class="note">See also: <a href="/facts/Causes_of_climate_change/6pEq3FKL">Causes of climate change</a>, <a href="/facts/Global_surface_temperature/oddUmrb4">Global surface temperature</a>, and <a href="/facts/Greenhouse_effect/LGdNYYj3">Greenhouse effect</a></p> <p>The interest in solar radiation modification (SRM) arises from ongoing <a href="/facts/Global_warming/rEN4BDE7">global warming</a>, increasing risks to both human and natural systems.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:10" href="#fn:10"><sup>10</sup></a> </p><p>In principle, achieving <a href="/facts/Net-zero_emissions/llsAknfI">net-zero emissions</a> through <a href="/facts/Climate_change_mitigation/GgkoeWMk">emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal (CDR)</a> could halt global warming. However, emissions reductions have consistently fallen short of targets, and large-scale CDR may not be feasible.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:11" href="#fn:11"><sup>11</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12"><sup>12</sup></a> The 2024 <a href="/facts/United_Nations_Environment_Programme/2P9vPoSU">UN Environment Programme (UNEP)</a> Emissions Gap Report said that current policies would likely lead to 3.1°C global warming <a href="/facts/Nationally_determined_contribution/p3FWRzHK">country’s commitments and pledges to reduce emissions</a> would likely lead to 1.9°C warming.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13"><sup>13</sup></a>: xviii </p><p>SRM aims to increase Earth's brightness (<a href="/facts/Albedo/TJDRdKEB">albedo</a>) by modifying the atmosphere or surface to reflect more sunlight. A 1% increase in planetary albedo could reduce radiative forcing by 2.35 W/m², offsetting most of the warming from current greenhouse gas concentrations. A 2% increase could counteract the warming effect of a doubling of atmospheric <a href="/facts/Carbon_dioxide/xGzpppEp">carbon dioxide</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14"><sup>14</sup></a>: 625 </p><p>Unlike emissions reduction or CDR, SRM could reduce global temperatures within months of deployment.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:15" href="#fn:15"><sup>15</sup></a>: vii <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:16" href="#fn:16"><sup>16</sup></a>: 14 This rapid effect means SRM could help limit the worst climate impacts while emissions reductions and CDR are scaled up. However, SRM would not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, meaning that <a href="/facts/Ocean_acidification/GE7MrSPj">ocean acidification</a> and other climate change effects would persist. </p><p>The <a href="/facts/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/sh76du1u">IPCC</a> <a href="/facts/IPCC_Sixth_Assessment_Report/Dc5drLUK">Sixth Assessment Report</a> emphasizes that SRM is not a substitute for emissions reductions or CDR, stating: "There is high agreement in the literature that for addressing climate change risks, SRM cannot be the main policy response to climate change and is, at best, a supplement to achieving sustained net zero or net negative CO₂ emission levels globally."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:17" href="#fn:17"><sup>17</sup></a>: 1489 </p><p><a href="/facts/Global_dimming/JBMzvfYk">Global dimming</a> provides both evidence of SRM's potential efficacy and further urgency of human-caused climate change. Industrial processes have increased the quantity of aerosols in the troposphere, or lower atmosphere. This has cooled the planet, offsetting some global warming,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:18" href="#fn:18"><sup>18</sup></a>: 855–857 caused by the aerosol's reflectivity (the basis for <a href="/facts/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection/VfhU4Ad1">stratospheric aerosol injection</a>) and by increasing' clouds' reflectivity (the basis for <a href="/facts/Marine_cloud_brightening/24fofQPw">marine cloud brightening</a>).<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:19" href="#fn:19"><sup>19</sup></a>: 860–861 As regulation has reduced tropospheric aerosols, global dimming has decreased and the planet has warmed at a faster rate.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:20" href="#fn:20"><sup>20</sup></a>: 851–853 </p> <h2 id="history">History</h2> <p>In 1965, during the administration of <a href="/facts/U.S._President/oMsfmLb1">U.S. President</a> <a href="/facts/Lyndon_B._Johnson/PKNthHX1">Lyndon B. Johnson</a>, the <a href="/facts/President%2527s_Science_Advisory_Committee/RKangyel">President's Science Advisory Committee</a> delivered <i>Restoring the Quality of Our Environment</i>, the first report which warned of the harmful effects of <a href="/facts/Carbon_dioxide_emissions/Cu9nXPHE">carbon dioxide emissions</a> from <a href="/facts/Fossil_fuel/BPgxAqB7">fossil fuel</a> use. To counteract <a href="/facts/Global_warming/rEN4BDE7">global warming</a>, the report mentioned "deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes," including "raising the <a href="/facts/Albedo/TJDRdKEB">albedo</a>, or reflectivity, of the Earth".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:21" href="#fn:21"><sup>21</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:22" href="#fn:22"><sup>22</sup></a> </p><p>In 1974, Russian <a href="/facts/Climatology/bYS7FktY">climatologist</a> <a href="/facts/Mikhail_Budyko/rR5KHYGJ">Mikhail Budyko</a> suggested that if global warming ever became a serious threat, it could be countered by releasing aerosols into the stratosphere. He proposed that aircraft burning sulfur could generate aerosols that would reflect sunlight away from the Earth, cooling the planet.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:23" href="#fn:23"><sup>23</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:24" href="#fn:24"><sup>24</sup></a>: 38 </p><p>Along with <a href="/facts/Carbon_dioxide_removal/dY6ADxrJ">carbon dioxide removal</a>, SRM was discussed under the broader concept of <a href="/facts/Geoengineering/yo7WTpGe">geoengineering</a> in a 1992 climate change report from the <a href="/facts/National_Academies_of_Sciences%2c_Engineering%2c_and_Medicine/AdYmBBGV">US National Academies</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:25" href="#fn:25"><sup>25</sup></a> The first modeled results of and review article on SRM were published in 2000.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:26" href="#fn:26"><sup>26</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:27" href="#fn:27"><sup>27</sup></a> In 2006, <a href="/facts/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry/8Nb8Ajjy">Nobel Laureate</a> <a href="/facts/Paul_J._Crutzen/p2P2pndC">Paul Crutzen</a> published an influential paper arguing that, given the lack of adequate greenhouse gas emissions reductions, research on the feasibility and environmental consequences of SRM should not be dismissed.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:28" href="#fn:28"><sup>28</sup></a> </p><p>Major reports evaluating the potential benefits and risks of SRM include those by: </p> <ul><li>The <a href="/facts/Royal_Society/KI5yXCuV">Royal Society</a> (2009)<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:29" href="#fn:29"><sup>29</sup></a></li> <li>The <a href="/facts/National_Academies_of_Sciences%2c_Engineering%2c_and_Medicine/AdYmBBGV">US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine</a> (2015, 2021)<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:30" href="#fn:30"><sup>30</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:31" href="#fn:31"><sup>31</sup></a></li> <li>The <a href="/facts/United_Nations_Environment_Programme/2P9vPoSU">United Nations Environment Programme</a> (2023)<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:32" href="#fn:32"><sup>32</sup></a></li> <li>The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (<a href="/facts/UNESCO/QSbkRv3o">UNESCO</a>) (2023)<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:33" href="#fn:33"><sup>33</sup></a></li> <li>The <a href="/facts/European_Union/6GYcR8qM">European Union</a> <a href="/facts/Scientific_Advice_Mechanism/EQEbMRq0">Scientific Advice Mechanism</a> (2024).<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:34" href="#fn:34"><sup>34</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:35" href="#fn:35"><sup>35</sup></a></li></ul> <p>In the late 2010s, SRM was increasingly distinguished from carbon dioxide removal, and "geoengineering" and similar terms were used less often.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:36" href="#fn:36"><sup>36</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:37" href="#fn:37"><sup>37</sup></a>: 550 </p> <h2 id="methods">Methods</h2> <h3>Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI)</h3> <p class="note">Main article: <a href="/facts/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection/VfhU4Ad1">Stratospheric aerosol injection</a></p> <p>For <a href="/facts/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection/VfhU4Ad1">stratospheric aerosol injection</a> (SAI), small particles would be introduced into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight and induce <a href="/facts/Global_dimming/JBMzvfYk">global dimming</a>. Of all the proposed SRM methods, SAI has received the most sustained attention. The <a href="/facts/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/sh76du1u">IPCC</a> concluded in 2021 that SAI "is the most-researched SRM method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5 °C."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:38" href="#fn:38"><sup>38</sup></a>: 350 This technique would replicate <a href="/facts/Volcanic_winter/SAnA3nsU">natural cooling phenomena</a> observed following large <a href="/facts/Volcano/c2M5upml">volcano</a> eruptions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:39" href="#fn:39"><sup>39</sup></a>: 627 </p><p>Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosol due to their natural occurrence in volcanic eruptions. Alternative substances, including <a href="/facts/Calcium_carbonate/UQ1wLFna">calcium carbonate</a> and <a href="/facts/Titanium_dioxide/T0KWmKcz">titanium dioxide</a> have also been suggested.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:40" href="#fn:40"><sup>40</sup></a>: 624 </p><p>Custom-designed <a href="/facts/Aircraft/EhC4mBep">aircraft</a> are considered the most feasible delivery method, with <a href="/facts/Artillery/GLpMYG9o">artillery</a> and <a href="/facts/Balloons/o9JQ2ykA">balloons</a> occasionally proposed.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:41" href="#fn:41"><sup>41</sup></a> </p><p>SAI could produce up to 8 W/m² of negative <a href="/facts/Radiative_forcing/VSLpzv66">radiative forcing</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:42" href="#fn:42"><sup>42</sup></a>: 624 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/World_Meteorological_Organization/NWrDcKbl">World Meteorological Organization</a>'s 2022 <a href="/facts/Scientific_Assessment_of_Ozone_Depletion/HetSus6o">Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion</a> stated that "Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) has the potential to limit the rise in global surface temperatures by increasing the concentrations of particles in the stratosphere... However, SAI comes with significant risks and can cause unintended consequences."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:43" href="#fn:43"><sup>43</sup></a>: 21 </p><p>A key concern with SAI is its potential to delay the recovery of the <a href="/facts/Ozone_layer/v4KfjalC">ozone layer</a>, depending on which aerosols are used.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:44" href="#fn:44"><sup>44</sup></a>: 21 </p> <h3>Marine cloud brightening (MCB)</h3> <p class="note">This section is an excerpt from <a href="/facts/Marine_cloud_brightening/24fofQPw">Marine cloud brightening</a>.[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marine_cloud_brightening&action=edit">edit</a>]</p> <p><a href="/facts/Marine_cloud_brightening/24fofQPw">Marine cloud brightening</a> (MCB), also known as marine <a href="/facts/Cloud_seeding/sleWvvte">cloud seeding</a> or marine cloud engineering, may be a way to make <a href="/facts/Marine_stratocumulus/AcedfpD2">stratocumulus clouds over the sea</a> brighter, thus <a href="/facts/Sunlight_reflection_method/Ho5UblE7">reflecting more sunlight back into space</a> in order to limit <a href="/facts/Climate_change/rEN4BDE7">global warming</a>. It is one of two such methods that might feasibly have a substantial climate impact, but is lower in the atmosphere than <a href="/facts/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection/VfhU4Ad1">stratospheric aerosol injection</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:45" href="#fn:45"><sup>45</sup></a> It may be able to keep local areas from overheating. If used on a large scale it might reduce the Earth's <a href="/facts/Albedo/TJDRdKEB">albedo</a>; and so, in combination with <a href="/facts/Climate_change_mitigation/GgkoeWMk">greenhouse gas emissions reduction</a>, limit climate change and its <a href="/facts/Effects_of_global_warming/M5EvHf14">risks to people and the environment</a>. If implemented, the cooling effect would be expected to be felt rapidly and to be reversible on fairly short time scales. However, technical barriers remain to large-scale marine cloud brightening, and it could not offset all the current warming.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:46" href="#fn:46"><sup>46</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:47" href="#fn:47"><sup>47</sup></a> As clouds are complicated and poorly understood, the risks of marine cloud brightening are unclear as of 2025. </p> Very small droplets of <a href="/facts/Sea_water/fRBJjbws">sea water</a> are sprayed into the air to increase cloud reflectivity. The <a href="/facts/Sea_salt_aerosol/Jt7W52dw">fine particles of sea salt</a> enhance <a href="/facts/Cloud_condensation_nuclei/8u5mVsFR">cloud condensation nuclei</a>, making more cloud droplets so making the clouds more reflective.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:48" href="#fn:48"><sup>48</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:49" href="#fn:49"><sup>49</sup></a>: 628 MCB could be implemented using fleets of unmanned <a href="/facts/Rotor_ship/ydcAljUX">rotor ships</a> to disperse seawater mist into the air.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:50" href="#fn:50"><sup>50</sup></a>: 43 Small-scale field tests were conducted on the <a href="/facts/Great_Barrier_Reef/3DkV4aad">Great Barrier Reef</a> in 2024.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:51" href="#fn:51"><sup>51</sup></a> <h3>Cirrus cloud thinning (CCT)</h3> <p class="note">Main article: <a href="/facts/Cirrus_cloud_thinning/pbAPcqJI">Cirrus cloud thinning</a></p> <p><a href="/facts/Cirrus_cloud_thinning/pbAPcqJI">Cirrus cloud thinning</a> (CCT) involves seeding cirrus clouds to reduce their optical thickness and decrease cloud lifetime, allowing more <a href="/facts/Outgoing_longwave_radiation/anrmbs9N">outgoing longwave radiation</a> to escape into space.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:52" href="#fn:52"><sup>52</sup></a>: 628 </p><p>Cirrus clouds generally have a net warming effect. By dispersing them through targeted interventions, CCT could enhance Earth's ability to radiate heat away. However, the method remains highly uncertain, as some studies suggest CCT could cause net warming rather than cooling due to complex cloud-aerosol interactions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:53" href="#fn:53"><sup>53</sup></a> </p><p>This method is often grouped with SRM despite working primarily by increasing outgoing radiation rather than reducing incoming <a href="/facts/Shortwave_radiation/wrtj3fxF">shortwave radiation</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:54" href="#fn:54"><sup>54</sup></a>: 624 </p> <h3>Reflective surfaces</h3> <p class="note">Main article: <a href="/facts/Reflective_surfaces_(climate_engineering)/yyJxDcul">Reflective surfaces (climate engineering)</a></p> <p>The <a href="/facts/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change/sh76du1u">IPCC</a> describes surface-based albedo modification as "increase ocean albedo by creating microbubbles;... paint the roof of buildings white...; increase albedo of agriculture land, add reflective material to increase sea ice albedo."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:55" href="#fn:55"><sup>55</sup></a>: 624 </p><p>Surface-based approaches could be considered localized and would have limited global impact.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:56" href="#fn:56"><sup>56</sup></a>: 624 While urban cooling could be achieved through <a href="/facts/Passive_daytime_radiative_cooling/ljL5fKxN">reflective roofs</a> and pavement, large-scale desert albedo modification could significantly alter regional precipitation patterns.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:57" href="#fn:57"><sup>57</sup></a>: 629 Covering glaciers with reflective materials has been proposed to slow melting, though feasibility and effectiveness at scale remains uncertain.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:58" href="#fn:58"><sup>58</sup></a>: 629 </p> <h3>Space-based methods</h3> <p class="note">Main articles: <a href="/facts/Space_mirror_(climate_engineering)/ypIpjtQM">Space mirror (climate engineering)</a> and <a href="/facts/Space_sunshade/M12xMmPM">Space sunshade</a></p> <p>Space-based SRM involves deploying mirrors, reflective particles, or shading structures at lower Earth orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or near the <a href="/facts/Lagrange_point/XCAN4o3P">L1 Lagrange point</a> between Earth and the Sun. Unlike atmospheric methods, space-based approaches would not directly interfere with Earth's climate systems. </p><p>Historically, proposals have included orbiting mirrors, space dust clouds, and electromagnetically tethered reflectors. The Royal Society (2009) and later assessments concluded that while space-based methods may be viable in the future, costs and deployment challenges make them infeasible for near-term climate intervention.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:59" href="#fn:59"><sup>59</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:60" href="#fn:60"><sup>60</sup></a> </p><p>Assessments conclude that space-based SRM is not feasible at reasonable costs.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:61" href="#fn:61"><sup>61</sup></a>: 12 The most recent IPCC Assessment Report (in 2021) did not consider these methods.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:62" href="#fn:62"><sup>62</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="cost">Cost</h2> <p>SRM could have relatively low direct financial costs of deployment compared to the projected economic damages of unmitigated climate change.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:63" href="#fn:63"><sup>63</sup></a>: 1492, 1494 These costs could be on the order of billions to tens of billions of US dollars per degree of cooling.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:64" href="#fn:64"><sup>64</sup></a>: 36 </p><p>Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is the most studied and has the most cost estimates. UNEP reported a cost of $18 billion per degree,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:65" href="#fn:65"><sup>65</sup></a>: 32 although individual studies have estimated that SAI deployment could cost between $5 billion to $10 billion per year.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:66" href="#fn:66"><sup>66</sup></a> </p><p>MCB could cost, according to UNEP, $1 to 2 billion per W/m2 of negative radiative forcing,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:67" href="#fn:67"><sup>67</sup></a>: 32 which implies $1.5 to 3 billion per degree. </p><p>Cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) is even less studied, and no formal cost estimates exist.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:68" href="#fn:68"><sup>68</sup></a>: 32 </p> <h2 id="effects">Effects</h2> <h3>Potential for reducing climate change</h3> <p> Modelling studies have consistently concluded that moderate SRM use would significantly reduce many of the impacts of global warming, including changes to average and extreme temperature, extreme precipitation, Arctic and terrestrial ice, <a href="/facts/Cyclone/CIkCv8h7">cyclone</a> intensity and frequency , and the <a href="/facts/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation/R8dgsesx">Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:69" href="#fn:69"><sup>69</sup></a>: 625 SRM would take effect rapidly, unlike mitigation or carbon dioxide removal, making it the only known method to lower global temperatures within months.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:70" href="#fn:70"><sup>70</sup></a>: 14 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/IPCC/sh76du1u">IPCC</a> <a href="/facts/Sixth_Assessment_Report/Dc5drLUK">Sixth Assessment Report</a> states: "SRM could offset some of the effects of increasing greenhouse gases on global and regional climate, including the carbon and water cycles. However, there would be substantial residual or overcompensating climate change at the regional scales and seasonal timescales, and large uncertainties associated with aerosol–cloud–radiation interactions persist. The cooling caused by SRM would increase the global land and ocean CO2 sinks, but this would not stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere or affect the resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:71" href="#fn:71"><sup>71</sup></a>: 69 </p><p>SRM could partially offset agricultural losses arising from climate change.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:72" href="#fn:72"><sup>72</sup></a>: 66 The CO₂ fertilization effect, which enhances plant growth under high CO₂ levels, would continue under SRM. Some studies indicate that SRM might improve crop yields, while others suggest that reducing overall sunlight could slightly decrease agricultural productivity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:73" href="#fn:73"><sup>73</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:74" href="#fn:74"><sup>74</sup></a> </p><p>Some studies suggest that SRM could prevent coral decline and mass <a href="/facts/Coral_bleaching/LVNHFp9A">bleaching</a> events by reducing <a href="/facts/Sea_surface_temperatures/D9bNcRxX">sea surface temperatures</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:75" href="#fn:75"><sup>75</sup></a>: 67 </p> <h4>Regional differences</h4> <p>SRM would not perfectly reverse climate change effects. Differences in regional precipitation patterns, cloud cover, and atmospheric circulation could persist, with some regions experiencing overcompensation or residual warming and cooling effects.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:76" href="#fn:76"><sup>76</sup></a>: 625 This is because greenhouse gases warm throughout the globe and year, whereas SRM reflects light more effectively at low <a href="/facts/Latitude/IBYqkjhU">latitudes</a> and in the hemispheric summer (due to the <a href="/facts/Solar_zenith_angle/mwzmcUW6">sunlight's angle of incidence</a>) and only during daytime. Deployment regimes might be able to compensate for some of this heterogeneity by changing and optimizing injection rates by latitude and season.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:77" href="#fn:77"><sup>77</sup></a>: 627 </p> <h4>Precipitation</h4> <p>Models indicate that SRM would reverse warming-induced changes to precipitation more effectively than changes to temperature.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:78" href="#fn:78"><sup>78</sup></a>: 625–626 Therefore, using SRM to fully return global mean temperature to a preindustrial level would overcorrect for precipitation changes. This has led to claims that it would dry the planet or even cause drought,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:79" href="#fn:79"><sup>79</sup></a> but this would depend on the intensity (i.e. radiative forcing) of SRM. Furthermore, <a href="/facts/Soil_moisture/N9Yo068u">soil moisture</a> is more important for plants than average annual precipitation. Because SRM would reduce evaporation, it more precisely compensates for changes to soil moisture than for average annual precipitation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:80" href="#fn:80"><sup>80</sup></a>: 627 </p> <h3>Uncertainties and risks for the environment</h3> <p class="note">See also: <a href="/facts/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection/VfhU4Ad1">Stratospheric aerosol injection § Problematic aspects</a></p> <h4>Changes to monsoons</h4> <p>The <a href="/facts/Tropical_cyclones_and_climate_change/q6yRQTDK">intensity of tropical monsoons is increased by climate change</a> and would generally be decreased by SRM and especially SAI.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:81" href="#fn:81"><sup>81</sup></a>: 624 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:82" href="#fn:82"><sup>82</sup></a>: 458–459 A net reduction in tropical monsoon intensity might manifest at moderate use of SRM, although to some degree the effect of this on humans and ecosystems would be mitigated averted heat.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:83" href="#fn:83"><sup>83</sup></a>: 458–459 Ultimately the impact would depend on the particular implementation regime.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:84" href="#fn:84"><sup>84</sup></a>: 625 </p> <h4>Effect on sky and clouds</h4> <p>SRM would change the ratio between direct and indirect solar radiation, affecting plant life and <a href="/facts/Solar_energy/YBSajyN4">solar energy</a>. Visible light, useful for photosynthesis, is reduced proportionally more than is the infrared portion of the solar spectrum due to the mechanism of <a href="/facts/Mie_scattering/5mJc3SrT">Mie scattering</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:85" href="#fn:85"><sup>85</sup></a> As a result, deployment of atmospheric SRM would affect the growth rates of plants, with the expected impact differing between <a href="/facts/Canopy_(biology)/P1C0uxKl">canopy</a> and subcanopy plants.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:86" href="#fn:86"><sup>86</sup></a>: 1491 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:87" href="#fn:87"><sup>87</sup></a>: 62–63, 66 </p><p>Uniformly reduced net shortwave radiation would reduce <a href="/facts/Solar_power/NpgmEbU2">solar power</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:88" href="#fn:88"><sup>88</sup></a>: 61, 66 but the real-world impact would be complex. </p> <h4>Stratospheric ozone</h4> <p>SAI would affect stratospheric ozone, which protects organisms from harmful <a href="/facts/Ultraviolet/kncBUqn5">ultraviolet radiation</a>, with the effect depending on the characteristics of deployment.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:89" href="#fn:89"><sup>89</sup></a>: 624, 627–628 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:90" href="#fn:90"><sup>90</sup></a> Sulfates, the most commonly proposed aerosol, would delay the current recovery of stratospheric ozone. </p> <h4>Failure to reduce ocean acidification</h4> <p>SRM does not directly influence atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and thus does not reduce <a href="/facts/Ocean_acidification/GE7MrSPj">ocean acidification</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:91" href="#fn:91"><sup>91</sup></a>: 1492 While not a risk of SRM <i>per se</i>, this indicates a critical limitation of relying on it to the exclusion of emissions reduction. </p> <h4>Climate model uncertainties</h4> <p>While climate models indicate that SRM could reduce many global warming hazards, limitations in model accuracy, aerosol-cloud interactions, and the response of regional climate systems remain key uncertainties.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:92" href="#fn:92"><sup>92</sup></a>: 624–625 Therefore, much uncertainty remains about some of SRM's likely effects.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:93" href="#fn:93"><sup>93</sup></a>: 624–625 Most of the evidence regarding SRM's expected effects comes from <a href="/facts/Climate_model/5xQBYLcl">climate models</a> and volcanic eruptions. Some uncertainties in climate models (such as aerosol microphysics, stratospheric dynamics, and sub-grid scale mixing) are particularly relevant to SRM and are a target for future research.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:94" href="#fn:94"><sup>94</sup></a> Volcanoes are an imperfect analogue as they release the material in the stratosphere in a single pulse, as opposed to sustained injection.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:95" href="#fn:95"><sup>95</sup></a>: 11 </p> <h4>Risks to ecosystems</h4> <p>A 2023 UNEP report concluded that while an operational SRM deployment could reduce some climate hazards it would also introduce new risks to <a href="/facts/Ecosystem/kVE8mSmR">ecosystems</a> and human societies.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:96" href="#fn:96"><sup>96</sup></a>: 15 </p><p>Ecosystem impacts are not yet well understood. An EU report concluded "The potential effects on societies and especially ecosystems of SAI and SD are identified as a critical knowledge gap, with studies emphasising that the impacts and risks would vary based on the implementation scenario, geographic region and specific characteristics of ecosystems. SAI implementation may prevent some of the consequences of climate change on societies and ecosystems but it could also have unintended, and potentially unexpected, impacts."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:97" href="#fn:97"><sup>97</sup></a>: 65 Terrestrial ecosystems could experience uncertain shifts in composition and plant productivity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:98" href="#fn:98"><sup>98</sup></a>: 62, 65 </p> <h2 id="governance">Governance</h2><p> SRM raises a variety of governance issues. The IPCC lists these potential objectives of SRM governance:</p><blockquote><p>(i) Guard against potential risks and harm; (ii) Enable appropriate research and development of scientific knowledge; (iii) Legitimise any future research or policymaking through active and informed public and expert community engagement; (iv) Ensure that SRM is considered only as a part of a broader, mitigation-centred portfolio of responses to climate change.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:99" href="#fn:99"><sup>99</sup></a>: 1494 </p></blockquote> <h3>Potential governance challenges</h3> <h4>Displacement of mitigation</h4> <p>A common concern regarding SRM research and potential deployment is that it might reduce political and social momentum for <a href="/facts/Climate_change_mitigation/GgkoeWMk">climate change mitigation</a>, especially the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:100" href="#fn:100"><sup>100</sup></a>: 1493 This hypothesis is often called "<a href="/facts/Moral_hazard/HdsYcG0B">moral hazard</a>." The likelihood and significance of moral hazard effects remain uncertain and contested among experts. Some have argued that this is unlikely and--even if true--is not a compelling reason to forgo researching and evaluating SRM if it could greatly reduce global warming and its impacts,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:101" href="#fn:101"><sup>101</sup></a> while others see the prospect as a reason to not pursue SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:102" href="#fn:102"><sup>102</sup></a> Empirical evidence from game-theoretic modeling, opinion surveys, and behavioral experiments inconclusive.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:103" href="#fn:103"><sup>103</sup></a>: 99 A recent review article calls evidence for mitigation displacement "weak" but notes that these research methods fail to account for "the precise concern that real political decisions under interest-group mobilization will cut emissions too little in the presence of SRM."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:104" href="#fn:104"><sup>104</sup></a>: 355 </p> <h4>Decisions whether to use</h4> <p>Another common concern with SRM is that, because its high leverage, low apparent direct costs (at least of SAI), and technical feasibility as well as issues of power and jurisdiction suggest that uni- or minilateral use is possible, without international agreement or sufficient understanding of its expected effects.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:105" href="#fn:105"><sup>105</sup></a>: 1494–1495 A key issue is under what governance regime(s) the use could be controlled, monitored, and supervised. Yet leaders of countries and other actors may disagree as to whether, how, and to what degree SRM be used. This could result in suboptimal deployments and create international tensions, especially if local harms were perceived.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:106" href="#fn:106"><sup>106</sup></a>: 1494 Experts diverge on whether uni- or minilateral use is likely and whether effective governance would be feasible<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:107" href="#fn:107"><sup>107</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:108" href="#fn:108"><sup>108</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:109" href="#fn:109"><sup>109</sup></a> and on whether nonstate actors could deploy SRM at a significant scale.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:110" href="#fn:110"><sup>110</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:111" href="#fn:111"><sup>111</sup></a> </p><p>This is further complicated in two important ways. First, since SRM technologies are still emerging, there is a concern that premature regulations might be either "too restrictive or too permissive," failing to adapt adequately to future political, technological, or geophysical developments.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:112" href="#fn:112"><sup>112</sup></a>: 1494 Second, because <a href="/facts/International_law/WJEPeq44">international law</a> is generally consensual, any governance regime would need to particularly engage and secure cooperation from countries that perceive themselves as potential users of SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:113" href="#fn:113"><sup>113</sup></a>: 153 </p> <h4>Termination</h4> <p>If SRM were masking significant warming and abruptly ceased without resumption within a short period (roughly a year), the climate would rapidly warm toward levels that would have existed without SRM, a phenomenon sometimes call "termination shock."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:114" href="#fn:114"><sup>114</sup></a>: 1493 A sudden and sustained termination of SRM in a world of atmospheric high greenhouse-gas concentrations would trigger rapid global temperature rise, intensified precipitation changes, sea level rise, land drying, weakened carbon sinks, and accelerated CO₂ accumulation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:115" href="#fn:115"><sup>115</sup></a>: 629 The IPCC notes that a gradual phase-out of SRM combined with mitigation would reduce the impacts of SRM's termination.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:116" href="#fn:116"><sup>116</sup></a>: 629 Furthermore, some scholars argue that this risk might be manageable, as states would have strong incentives to resume deployment if necessary, and maintaining backup SRM infrastructure could enhance system resilience and provide a buffer against abrupt cessation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:117" href="#fn:117"><sup>117</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:118" href="#fn:118"><sup>118</sup></a> </p> <h4>Deployment length</h4> <p>A large-scale deployment of SRM would likely require a multi-decade to century-long commitment to maintain its intended climate effects.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:119" href="#fn:119"><sup>119</sup></a>: 8–10 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:120" href="#fn:120"><sup>120</sup></a>: 14 This may be necessary to achieve sustained cooling, particularly as greenhouse-gas concentrations continue to rise due to continued net emissions and carbon dioxide's long atmospheric lifetime. </p> <h3>Existing governance</h3> <p>There is currently no dedicated, formal law specifically governing SRM research, development, or deployment, though certain multilateral agreements, rules of customary international law, national and European laws, and nonbinding legal documents contain provisions that may be applicable to some SRM activities.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:121" href="#fn:121"><sup>121</sup></a>: 1493, 1495 </p> <h4>Binding international law</h4> <p>The <a href="/facts/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change/Tg7f18g3">UN Framework Convention on Climate Change</a> and its related treaties do not address SRM, though it could be considered within the framework of the <a href="/facts/Paris_Agreement/hfIXBN1W">Paris Agreement’s</a> goal to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with efforts to stay within 1.5°C.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:122" href="#fn:122"><sup>122</sup></a>: 163 While the UNFCCC is founded on the <a href="/facts/Precautionary_principle/g2p0mez8">precautionary principle</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:123" href="#fn:123"><sup>123</sup></a>: 137 its specific implications for SRM remain uncertain.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:124" href="#fn:124"><sup>124</sup></a>: 1636–167 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea/t2PtV3aq">UN Convention on the Law of the Sea</a> could support SRM research by permitting legitimate scientific activities and encouraging studies that assess SRM’s effects on the marine environment. Its provisions to protect the marine environment may justify SRM research aimed at mitigating climate impacts on oceans, such as efforts to reduce warming or protect coral reefs. However, UNCLOS could also impose constraints on large-scale outdoor activities, particularly if activities under a state’s jurisdiction risk polluting or harming marine ecosystems. Additionally, because SRM does not directly address ocean acidification, its alignment with UNCLOS' environmental protection objectives remains uncertain.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:125" href="#fn:125"><sup>125</sup></a>: 101–102 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/Environmental_Modification_Convention/nbVqMhDM">Environmental Modification Convention</a> is the only international treaty that directly regulates deliberate manipulation of natural processes with "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects" of a transboundary nature. SRM falls within ENMOD’s definition of environmental modification techniques and is therefore subject to its prohibition on military or hostile use. At the same time, the treaty states that it "shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes." ENMOD also encourages the exchange of information and international cooperation on peaceful environmental modification, with parties "in a position to do so" expected to support scientific and economic collaboration.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:126" href="#fn:126"><sup>126</sup></a>: 162 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/Vienna_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_the_Ozone_Layer/q5mjRQeh">Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer</a> and its <a href="/facts/Montreal_Protocol/Hmf70BQK">Montreal Protocol</a> obligate parties to take measures to reduce or prevent human activities that could have harmful effects from modifying the ozone layer, which some forms of SAI might have. Article 2 specifically requires states to cooperate to "protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting or likely to result from human activities which modify or are likely to modify the ozone layer."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:127" href="#fn:127"><sup>127</sup></a>: 162 </p><p>The <a href="/facts/Trail_Smelter_dispute/mkN8cfIn">rule of prevention of transboundary harm</a> under <a href="/facts/Customary_international_law/9VzEfGem">customary international law</a> obligates states to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm and to reduce the risks thereof. This rule would be relevant to large-scale outdoor SRM activities, if they were to present risk of causing significant transboundary harm on human health, ecosystems, or the climate system. Under this rule, states must exercise due diligence to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm by conducting environmental impact assessments, notifying and consulting affected states, and cooperating in good faith to mitigate risks. Failure to meet these obligations could result in state responsibility for harm caused by activities within their jurisdiction. Scholars have debated whether SRM research and deployment should be held to different legal standards. Furthermore, international cooperation obligations may require states to collaborate on impact assessments, data sharing, and governance mechanisms.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:128" href="#fn:128"><sup>128</sup></a>: 156–161 </p> <h4>Nonbinding international law</h4><p> The <a href="/facts/International_Law_Commission/d0DV4Foj">International Law Commission</a> developed draft guidelines for the protection of the atmosphere. One guidelines state, in its entirety:</p><blockquote><p>Activities aimed at intentional large-scale modification of the atmosphere should only be conducted with prudence and caution, and subject to any applicable rules of international law, including those relating to environmental impact assessment.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:129" href="#fn:129"><sup>129</sup></a></p></blockquote><p>The Conference of Parties to the <a href="/facts/Convention_on_Biological_Diversity/lQVGd4Dt">Convention on Biological Diversity</a> have made several decisions regarding "climate related geoengineering," which would include SRM. That of 2010 established "a comprehensive non-binding normative framework"<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:130" href="#fn:130"><sup>130</sup></a>: 106 for "climate-related geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity," requesting that such activities be justified by the need to gather specific scientific data, undergo prior environmental assessment, be subject to effective regulatory oversight.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:131" href="#fn:131"><sup>131</sup></a>: 96–97 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:132" href="#fn:132"><sup>132</sup></a>: 161–162 The Parties' 2016 decision called for "more transdisciplinary research and sharing of knowledge... in order to better understand the impacts of climate-related geoengineering."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:133" href="#fn:133"><sup>133</sup></a>: 161-162 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:134" href="#fn:134"><sup>134</sup></a> </p><h4>National and subnational law</h4> <p>As with international law, existing areas of national and subnational law—such as <a href="/facts/Environmental_law/wgFnMNQ6">environmental regulation</a>, <a href="/facts/Tort/nUgUN8zN">tort</a> liability, and <a href="/facts/Intellectual_property/PqHW9mVP">intellectual property</a>—would govern certain aspects of SRM. For example, in the US,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:135" href="#fn:135"><sup>135</sup></a>: 91–96 under the <a href="/facts/National_Environmental_Policy_Act/USw6zahb">National Environmental Protection Act</a> and similar state laws, federally sponsored or authorized outdoor SRM research may require environmental review if it poses risk of significant physical impacts, though small-scale experiments are often exempt. Several federal regulatory statutes, including the <a href="/facts/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)/zfdgfHjP">Clean Air Act</a>, <a href="/facts/Clean_Water_Act/n2lhf5Jv">Clean Water Act</a>, <a href="/facts/Marine_Protection%2c_Research%2c_and_Sanctuaries_Act_of_1972/tqCR3vfT">Ocean Dumping Act</a>, and <a href="/facts/Federal_Aviation_Administration/PYsXt3YT">Federal Aviation Administration</a> rules, may apply to SRM field experiments depending on their design, particularly regarding emissions into air or water and the use of aircraft. Outdoor experiments could also expose researchers to tort liability under state common law theories such as <a href="/facts/Negligence/0GMNBaIr">negligence</a>, <a href="/facts/Strict_liability/6aeC9IDb">strict liability</a>, or <a href="/facts/Nuisance/gtATl2lA">nuisance</a>, though plaintiffs may face challenges in proving causation and demonstrating that potential harms outweigh societal benefits. Intellectual property law, particularly <a href="/facts/Patent/LjT2bG3A">patent</a> rights, may influence the development of SRM technologies by incentivizing innovation while potentially limiting access, although current patent activity in the field remains limited. </p><p>The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico announced in 2023 that it would prohibit SRM experiments in that country.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:136" href="#fn:136"><sup>136</sup></a> </p><p>In 2025, several US states implemented or are considering prohibitions on "geoengineering." However, these are aimed not at SRM per se but at purported <a href="/facts/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/P4qu1w2f">chemtrails</a> or weather modification.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:137" href="#fn:137"><sup>137</sup></a> </p> <h4>Guidelines and principles</h4> <p>Groups of academics, research networks, and the broader SRM research community have developed multiple sets of principles or guidelines to help govern SRM activities.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:138" href="#fn:138"><sup>138</sup></a>: 106 <a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:139" href="#fn:139"><sup>139</sup></a>: 134 For example, the Oxford Principles (which address SRM and carbon dioxide removal as "geoengineering") are the most prominent:<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:140" href="#fn:140"><sup>140</sup></a>: 21 </p> <ul><li>Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good;</li> <li>Public participation in geoengineering decision making;</li> <li>Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results;</li> <li>Independent assessment of impacts; and</li> <li>Governance before deployment.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:141" href="#fn:141"><sup>141</sup></a></li></ul> <p>More recently, the <a href="/facts/American_Geophysical_Union/c4fmbVpa">American Geophysical Union</a> issued an ethical framework for researching "climate intervention" (again, SRM and carbon dioxide removal).<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:142" href="#fn:142"><sup>142</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:143" href="#fn:143"><sup>143</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="support-for-research">Support for research</h2> <p>Support for SRM research has come from scientists, international organizations, governments, and <a href="/facts/Non-governmental_organization/qxQSsxsI">non-governmental organizations</a> (NGOs). A central argument in support of SRM research is that there are large and immediate risks from climate change, and SRM is the only known way to quickly stop (or reverse) warming. </p><p>An article in <i><a href="/facts/MIT_Technology_Review/tk8zUzg2">MIT Technology Review</a></i> stated in 2017<i>:</i> "Few serious scientists would argue that we should begin deploying geoengineering anytime soon."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:144" href="#fn:144"><sup>144</sup></a> </p><p>Campaigners have claimed that the <a href="/facts/Fossil_fuels_lobby/YKtTxG0E">fossil fuels lobby</a> advocates for SRM research.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:145" href="#fn:145"><sup>145</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:146" href="#fn:146"><sup>146</sup></a> However, research by information hub SRM360 and others has "not found evidence that private fossil fuel interests are funding or promoting SRM, and many recipients of SRM funding explicitly state that they will not accept funding from fossil fuel sources."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:147" href="#fn:147"><sup>147</sup></a> </p> <h3>Scientists and other academics</h3> <p>Two sign-on letters in 2023 from scientists and other experts called for expanded "responsible SRM research". One requested to "objectively evaluate the potential for SRM to reduce climate risks and impacts, to understand and minimize the risks of SRM approaches, and to identify the information required for governance". It was endorsed by "more than 110 physical and biological scientists studying climate and climate impacts about the role of physical sciences research."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:148" href="#fn:148"><sup>148</sup></a> Another called for "balance in research and assessment of solar radiation modification" and was endorsed by about 150 experts, mostly scientists.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:149" href="#fn:149"><sup>149</sup></a> </p><p>Furthermore, in a publication of 2025 <a href="/facts/James_Hansen/z0A4PnM9">James Hansen</a> and others said "Research on purposeful global cooling should be pursued, as recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:150" href="#fn:150"><sup>150</sup></a> </p> <h3>Government and other scientific bodies</h3> <p>Scientific and other large organizations that have called for further research on SRM include: </p> <ul><li>In the UK: the <a href="/facts/Royal_Society/KI5yXCuV">Royal Society</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:151" href="#fn:151"><sup>151</sup></a> the <a href="/facts/Institution_of_Mechanical_Engineers/SutgKPFp">Institution of Mechanical Engineers</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:152" href="#fn:152"><sup>152</sup></a> and the editorial board of <i><a href="/facts/Nature_(journal)/XmlJXkFx">Nature</a></i><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:153" href="#fn:153"><sup>153</sup></a></li> <li>In Australia: the <a href="/facts/Office_of_the_Chief_Scientist_(Australia)/q4kV6sIs">Office of the Chief Scientist</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:154" href="#fn:154"><sup>154</sup></a></li> <li>In the Netherlands: <a href="/facts/Rathenau_Institute/Uwgnb9eK">Netherlands' scientific assessment institute</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:155" href="#fn:155"><sup>155</sup></a></li> <li>In the United States: the <a href="/facts/National_Academies_of_Sciences%2c_Engineering%2c_and_Medicine/AdYmBBGV">US National Academies</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:156" href="#fn:156"><sup>156</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:157" href="#fn:157"><sup>157</sup></a> the <a href="/facts/American_Geophysical_Union/c4fmbVpa">American Geophysical Union</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:158" href="#fn:158"><sup>158</sup></a> the <a href="/facts/American_Meteorological_Society/Pb5psX4t">American Meteorological Society</a>, the <a href="/facts/U.S._Global_Change_Research_Program/8uXWqoJL">U.S. Global Change Research Program</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:159" href="#fn:159"><sup>159</sup></a> and the <a href="/facts/Council_on_Foreign_Relations/KqNdt1A4">Council on Foreign Relations</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:160" href="#fn:160"><sup>160</sup></a></li> <li>International organizations: the <a href="/facts/World_Climate_Research_Programme/RxrEaR66">World Climate Research Programme</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:161" href="#fn:161"><sup>161</sup></a> and reports from the <a href="/facts/United_Nations_Environment_Programme/2P9vPoSU">UN Environment Programme</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:162" href="#fn:162"><sup>162</sup></a> and the <a href="/facts/UNESCO/QSbkRv3o">UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:163" href="#fn:163"><sup>163</sup></a></li> <li>In the European Union: the <a href="/facts/Scientific_Advice_Mechanism/EQEbMRq0">Group of Chief Scientific Advisors</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:164" href="#fn:164"><sup>164</sup></a></li></ul> <p>Few countries have an explicit governmental position on SRM. Those that do, such as the United Kingdom,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:165" href="#fn:165"><sup>165</sup></a> Canada,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:166" href="#fn:166"><sup>166</sup></a> and Germany,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:167" href="#fn:167"><sup>167</sup></a>: 58 support some SRM research even if they do not see it as a current climate policy option. For example, the <a href="/facts/German_Federal_Government/TUaDgUnW">German Federal Government</a> does have an explicit position on SRM and stated in 2023 in a strategy document climate foreign policy: "Due to the uncertainties, implications and risks, the German Government is not currently considering solar radiation management (SRM) as a <a href="/facts/Climate_policy_of_the_European_Union/WksPLw00">climate policy</a> option". The document also stated: "Nonetheless, in accordance with the precautionary principle we will continue to analyse and assess the extensive scientific, technological, political, social and ethical risks and implications of SRM, in the context of technology-neutral basic research as distinguished from technology development for use at scale".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:168" href="#fn:168"><sup>168</sup></a>: 58 As of 2025 the federal US government does not have a policy on SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:169" href="#fn:169"><sup>169</sup></a> </p><p>Under the <a href="/facts/World_Climate_Research_Programme/RxrEaR66">World Climate Research Programme</a> there is a <i>Lighthouse Activity</i> called <i>Research on Climate Intervention</i> as of 2024<i>.</i> This will include research on possible large-scale carbon dioxide removal and SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:170" href="#fn:170"><sup>170</sup></a> </p> <h3>Nongovernmental organizations</h3> <p>Some nongovernmental organizations actively support SRM research and governance dialogues. </p><p><a href="/facts/Environmental_Defense_Fund/M5N2PaTj">Environmental Defense Fund</a> is developing an SRM research program.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:171" href="#fn:171"><sup>171</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:172" href="#fn:172"><sup>172</sup></a> </p><p><i>The Degrees Initiative</i> is a UK registered charity, established to build capacity in <a href="/facts/Developing_country/eTfS4kxl">developing countries</a> to evaluate SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:173" href="#fn:173"><sup>173</sup></a> It works toward "changing the global environment in which SRM is evaluated, ensuring informed and confident representation from developing countries."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:174" href="#fn:174"><sup>174</sup></a> A researcher from the German NGO <i>Geoengineering Monitor</i> is of the opinion that this charity is "imposing its research agenda onto the Global South" and is "predominantly funded by foundations run by technology and finance billionaires based in the Global North".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:175" href="#fn:175"><sup>175</sup></a> </p><p>Operaatio Arktis is a Finnish youth climate organisation that supports research into solar radiation modification alongside mitigation and carbon sequestration as a potential means to preserve polar ice caps and prevent tipping points.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:176" href="#fn:176"><sup>176</sup></a> </p><p>SilverLining is an American organization that advances SRM research as part of "climate interventions to reduce near-term climate risks and impacts."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:177" href="#fn:177"><sup>177</sup></a> It is funded by "philanthropic foundations and individual donors focused on climate change".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:178" href="#fn:178"><sup>178</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:179" href="#fn:179"><sup>179</sup></a> One of their funders is Quadrature Climate Foundation which "plans to provide $40 million for work in this field over the next three years" (as of 2024).<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:180" href="#fn:180"><sup>180</sup></a> </p><p>The <i>Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering</i> advances "just and inclusive deliberation" regarding SRM, in particular by engaging civil society organizations in the Global South and supporting a broader conversation on SRM governance.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:181" href="#fn:181"><sup>181</sup></a> The <i>Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative</i> catalyzed governance of SRM and carbon dioxide removal,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:182" href="#fn:182"><sup>182</sup></a> although it ended operations in 2023. </p><p>The Climate Overshoot Commission is a group of global, eminent, and independent figures.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:183" href="#fn:183"><sup>183</sup></a> It investigated and developed a comprehensive strategy to reduce <a href="/facts/Climate_risk/vJdUJpwI">climate risks</a>. The Commission recommended additional research on SRM alongside a moratorium on deployment and large-scale outdoor experiments. It also concluded that "governance of SRM research should be expanded".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:184" href="#fn:184"><sup>184</sup></a>: 15 </p><p>SRM research initiatives, or <i>non-profit knowledge hubs</i>, include for example SRM360 which is "supporting an informed, evidence-based discussion of sunlight reflection methods (SRM)".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:185" href="#fn:185"><sup>185</sup></a> Funding comes from the LAD Climate Fund.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:186" href="#fn:186"><sup>186</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:187" href="#fn:187"><sup>187</sup></a> </p><p>Another example is Reflective, which is "a philanthropically-funded initiative focused on sunlight reflection research and technology development".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:188" href="#fn:188"><sup>188</sup></a> Their funding is "entirely by grants or donations from a number of leading philanthropies focused on addressing climate change": Outlier Projects, Navigation Fund, Astera Institute, <a href="/facts/Open_Philanthropy/zQTd2pBH">Open Philanthropy</a>, Crankstart, Matt Cohler, Richard and Sabine Wood.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:189" href="#fn:189"><sup>189</sup></a> </p> <h3>Research funding</h3> <p>Through 2024, roughly $200 million had been spent on SRM research, with the annual rate having increased to more than $30 million in recent years.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:190" href="#fn:190"><sup>190</sup></a> As of May 2025, $164 more has been committed for 2025-2029. </p> <h4>Governments</h4> <p>As of 2025, 42% of research funding come from governments.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:191" href="#fn:191"><sup>191</sup></a> Countries that have funded SRM research include the U.S., U.K., Australia, Argentina, Germany, China, Finland, Norway, and Japan, as well as the European Union.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:192" href="#fn:192"><sup>192</sup></a> </p><p><a href="/facts/NOAA/IvcuqNJg">NOAA</a> in the United States spent $22 million USD from 2019 to 2022, with only a few outdoor tests carried out.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:193" href="#fn:193"><sup>193</sup></a> As of 2024, NOAA provides about $11 million USD a year through their solar geoengineering research program.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:194" href="#fn:194"><sup>194</sup></a> </p><p>In 2025, the UK government invested more than 60 million pounds on SRM research, which includes outdoor geoengineering experiments.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:195" href="#fn:195"><sup>195</sup></a> In late 2024, the <a href="/facts/Advanced_Research_and_Invention_Agency/BUQ5INgF">Advanced Research and Invention Agency</a>, a British funding agency, announced that research funds totaling 57 million pounds (about $75 million USD) will be made available to support projects which explore "Climate Cooling".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:196" href="#fn:196"><sup>196</sup></a> This includes outdoor experiments. Successful applicants were announced in 2025.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:197" href="#fn:197"><sup>197</sup></a> The program, together with another 10 million pound program by <a href="/facts/Natural_Environment_Research_Council/Q5z9z7Ns">Natural Environment Research Council</a> makes the UK “one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world”.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:198" href="#fn:198"><sup>198</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:199" href="#fn:199"><sup>199</sup></a> </p> <h4>Philanthropies</h4> <p>As of 2025, 48% of research funding has come from <a href="/facts/Philanthropy/Xep5s0gd">philanthropy</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:200" href="#fn:200"><sup>200</sup></a> The largest donors are the <a href="/facts/Simons_Foundation/AoEmwrar">SImons Foundation</a>, Quadrature Climate Foundation, and <a href="/facts/Open_Philanthropy/zQTd2pBH">Open Philanthropy</a>. According to <a href="/facts/Bloomberg_News/q4DStFUV">Bloomberg News</a>, as of 2024 several American billionaires are funding research into SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:201" href="#fn:201"><sup>201</sup></a> The article listed <a href="/facts/Mike_Schroepfer/tJYy9X4F">Mike Schroepfer</a>, <a href="/facts/Sam_Altman/jhstWT0n">Sam Altman</a>, <a href="/facts/Matt_Cohler/RSWUKJGS">Matt Cohler</a>, <a href="/facts/Rachel_Pritzker/8Ls89nRe">Rachel Pritzker</a>, <a href="/facts/Bill_Gates/z16t4m7s">Bill Gates</a>, and <a href="/facts/Dustin_Moskovitz/1eVmvIgV">Dustin Moskovitz</a> as being notable geoengineering research supporters.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:202" href="#fn:202"><sup>202</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="opposition-to-deployment-and-research">Opposition to deployment and research</h2> <p>Opposition to SRM research and deployment has come from activist <a href="/facts/Non-governmental_organization/qxQSsxsI">non-governmental organizations</a> (NGOs), academics,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:203" href="#fn:203"><sup>203</sup></a> and U.S. <a href="/facts/Republican_Party_(United_States)/XXM1EVPr">Republican</a> policymakers.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:204" href="#fn:204"><sup>204</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:205" href="#fn:205"><sup>205</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:206" href="#fn:206"><sup>206</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:207" href="#fn:207"><sup>207</sup></a> Common concerns include that SRM could undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, prove difficult to govern at a global scale, or trigger international tensions and conflict. Opponents often emphasize that strong mitigation would also deliver public health and environmental <a href="/facts/Climate_change_mitigation/GgkoeWMk">co-benefits</a>, such as reduced <a href="/facts/Air_pollution/zmk9Dy7S">air pollution</a>, which might be deprioritized if SRM gains traction.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:208" href="#fn:208"><sup>208</sup></a> </p> <h3>Advocacy groups</h3> <p>The <a href="/facts/ETC_Group_(eco-justice)/VPcP0Seu">ETC Group</a>, an NGO focused on the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of emerging technologies, was a pioneer in opposing SRM research.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:209" href="#fn:209"><sup>209</sup></a> It was later joined by the <a href="/facts/Heinrich_B%25C3%25B6ll_Foundation/7oHBdTqz">Heinrich Böll Foundation</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:210" href="#fn:210"><sup>210</sup></a> a German political organization affiliated with the <a href="/facts/Alliance_90%2fThe_Greens/HJ8MNBnc">Green Party</a>, and the <a href="/facts/Center_for_International_Environmental_Law/geDI79hG">Center for International Environmental Law</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:211" href="#fn:211"><sup>211</sup></a> <a href="/facts/Climate_Action_Network/aMSIjg35">Climate Action Network</a>, a global network of organizations promoting climate action, also opposes outdoor experiments and the use of SRM.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:212" href="#fn:212"><sup>212</sup></a> </p><p>In 2021, researchers at <a href="/facts/Harvard_University/Lhy9L1cx">Harvard University</a> paused plans for a small-scale SRM field experiment in Sweden after opposition from the <a href="/facts/Saami_Council/BrQQNsJx">Saami Council</a>, an Indigenous advocacy group. The Council objected to a test flight over their ancestral land.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:213" href="#fn:213"><sup>213</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:214" href="#fn:214"><sup>214</sup></a> Although the flight would not have released any material, the Saami Council criticized the lack of consultation and expressed broader concerns about the ethics and risks of SRM. </p> <h3>Academics</h3> <p>A coalition of scholars and advocates has proposed an “International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering,” calling for governments to prohibit funding, experimentation, <a href="/facts/Patent/LjT2bG3A">patenting</a>, deployment, and institutional legitimization of SRM, which they argue is too risky, politically ungovernable, and likely to undermine mitigation. As of December 2024, their effort has been supported by nearly 540 academics<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:215" href="#fn:215"><sup>215</sup></a> and 60 advocacy organizations.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:216" href="#fn:216"><sup>216</sup></a> Although the campaign describes the former as "scientists,"<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:217" href="#fn:217"><sup>217</sup></a> the large majority is social scientists. Their campaign was launched with an essay in an academic journal, <i>Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs): Climate Change</i>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:218" href="#fn:218"><sup>218</sup></a> The initiative does not disclose its ultimate funding source.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:219" href="#fn:219"><sup>219</sup></a> </p><p>The same journal later published two follow-up items. First, the publisher, <i><a href="/facts/Wiley_(publisher)/53g3LqJc">Wiley</a></i>, attached an editorial note to the essay acknowledging a conflict of interest in the <a href="/facts/Peer_review/ly6yEgcW">peer review</a> process. <a href="/facts/Mike_Hulme/ka2aQBq2">Mike Hulme</a>, the journal's editor-in-chief who oversaw the review of the article for <i>WIREs Climate Change,</i> had co-authored an earlier version of the article, which had been rejected by another journal. Wiley concluded that this was a conflict of interest. Hulme resigned as editor-in-chief during the publisher’s investigation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:220" href="#fn:220"><sup>220</sup></a> </p><p>Second, in a published response, a group of scholars argue that the “Non-Use Agreement” campaign misrepresents the state of research and exaggerates the risks of experimentation. They contend that such an agreement would stifle legitimate scientific inquiry, marginalize voices from developing countries, and hinder the responsible governance of emerging technologies.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:221" href="#fn:221"><sup>221</sup></a> </p> <h3>U.S. Republican policymakers</h3> <p>Since 2024, and especially following the re-election of <a href="/facts/Donald_Trump/pqqKY21P">Donald Trump</a> as U.S. President, lawmakers in at least 28 U.S. states have introduced or supported bills to prohibit SRM or related practices.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:222" href="#fn:222"><sup>222</sup></a> These efforts often target SRM<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:223" href="#fn:223"><sup>223</sup></a> and weather modification<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:224" href="#fn:224"><sup>224</sup></a> specifically. These bills are influenced by the <a href="/facts/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/P4qu1w2f">chemtrails conspiracy theory</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:225" href="#fn:225"><sup>225</sup></a> In April 2024, Tennessee enacted such a bill, approved along party lines<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:226" href="#fn:226"><sup>226</sup></a> and signed into law by Governor <a href="/facts/Bill_Lee_(Tennessee_politician)/khSLYf8N">Bill Lee</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:227" href="#fn:227"><sup>227</sup></a> </p><p>Members of the Trump administration have endorsed the effort. <a href="/facts/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services/JEP414sF">Secretary of Health and Human Services</a> in the Trump administration, <a href="/facts/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr./351RBFmV">Robert F. Kennedy Jr.</a> posted on <a href="/facts/Twitter/VWwDNGUm">X</a>: “24 States move to ban geoengineering our climate by dousing our citizens, our waterways and landscapes with toxins. This is a movement every MAHA (<a href="/facts/Make_America_Healthy_Again/Q2Dxmp8U">Make America Healthy Again</a>) needs to support. HHS will do its part.”<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:228" href="#fn:228"><sup>228</sup></a> When the <a href="/facts/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency/ghI985SI">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> took action against the startup Make Sunsets (see below), EPA Administrator <a href="/facts/Lee_Zeldin/cg4lJI82">Lee Zeldin</a> was quoted in the agency’s press release, stating: “The idea that individuals, supported by venture capitalists, are putting <a href="/facts/National_Ambient_Air_Quality_Standards/IEW9ujJ1">criteria air pollutants</a> into the air to sell ‘cooling’ credits shows how climate extremism has overtaken common sense.”<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:229" href="#fn:229"><sup>229</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="society-and-culture">Society and culture</h2> <h3>Commercial actors</h3> <p>Make Sunsets<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:230" href="#fn:230"><sup>230</sup></a> is a private <a href="/facts/Startup_company/9lsjFELt">startup</a> that sells "cooling credits" for its small-scale SRM activities, claiming that each US$10 credit offsets the warming effect of one ton of carbon dioxide for a year.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:231" href="#fn:231"><sup>231</sup></a> The firm releases balloons containing helium and <a href="/facts/Sulfur_dioxide/jDK1fIDs">sulfur dioxide</a>. Make Sunsets conducted some of its first activities in Mexico, causing the Mexican government announced its intention to prohibit SRM experiments within its borders.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:232" href="#fn:232"><sup>232</sup></a> Even those who advocate for more research into SRM criticize Make Sunsets' undertaking.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:233" href="#fn:233"><sup>233</sup></a> In April 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency demanded information from the startup regarding its releases of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:234" href="#fn:234"><sup>234</sup></a> </p> <h3>Public awareness and opinions</h3> <p>Overall, public opinion on SRM is nascent, ambivalent, and context-dependent, with greater support for research than for deployment.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:235" href="#fn:235"><sup>235</sup></a>: 100 Public awareness of SRM remains low globally, with 75–80% of respondents in recent multi-country surveys reporting little to no familiarity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:236" href="#fn:236"><sup>236</sup></a>: 96 Despite this, social science research on public attitudes toward SRM is growing and diversifying, although the UK, US, and Germany still dominate the existing academic literature.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:237" href="#fn:237"><sup>237</sup></a>: 92 Public opinion in the Global South remains less well examined, though several studies thus far consistently find greater openness to SRM there, where climate impacts are perceived as more immediate.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:238" href="#fn:238"><sup>238</sup></a>: 100-101 Methodologically, research has shifted toward large-scale surveys, but concerns remain about the durability of preferences given low baseline knowledge.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:239" href="#fn:239"><sup>239</sup></a>: 98 </p><p>Across studies, public views are shaped by values, perceived climate risk, and how SRM is framed. Common concerns include the fear of displacing mitigation, the unnaturalness of intervening in climate systems, justice and equity, and a desire to inform and consult with the public prior to use.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:240" href="#fn:240"><sup>240</sup></a>: 99-100 SRM is generally viewed less favorably than greenhouse-gas emissions reduction and carbon dioxide removal.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:241" href="#fn:241"><sup>241</sup></a>: 99 Europeans tend to be more averse, especially in central and northern countries (e.g. Germany, Austria, Switzerland), while southern European and Global South populations are more accepting, particularly when facing high climate vulnerability.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:242" href="#fn:242"><sup>242</sup></a>: 98 Some studies also highlight links between SRM and conspiracy theories, such as <a href="/facts/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/P4qu1w2f">chemtrails</a>, which can further complicate public understanding.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:243" href="#fn:243"><sup>243</sup></a>: 100 </p> <h3>Chemtrail conspiracy theory</h3> <p class="note">This section is an excerpt from <a href="/facts/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/P4qu1w2f">Chemtrail conspiracy theory</a>.[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory&action=edit">edit</a>]</p> <p>The <a href="/facts/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory/P4qu1w2f">chemtrail conspiracy theory</a> /ˈkɛmtreɪl/ is the erroneous<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:244" href="#fn:244"><sup>244</sup></a> belief that long-lasting <a href="/facts/Contrail/PmRg5uTn">condensation trails</a> left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are actually "chemtrails" consisting of <a href="/facts/Chemical_weapon/AwXDDhAR">chemical</a> or <a href="/facts/Biological_agent/4YnbS6Em">biological agents</a>, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:245" href="#fn:245"><sup>245</sup></a> Believers in this <a href="/facts/Conspiracy_theory/sNr2Kmh8">conspiracy theory</a> say that while normal contrails <a href="/facts/Dissipate/C134STy1">dissipate</a> relatively quickly, contrails that linger must contain additional substances.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:246" href="#fn:246"><sup>246</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:247" href="#fn:247"><sup>247</sup></a> Those who subscribe to the theory speculate that the purpose of the chemical release may be <a href="/facts/Solar_radiation_management/Ho5UblE7">solar radiation management</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:248" href="#fn:248"><sup>248</sup></a> <a href="/facts/Weather_modification/a8P6FsK1">weather modification</a>, <a href="/facts/Psychological_manipulation/RLqHuGzV">psychological manipulation</a>, <a href="/facts/Human_population_control/7HbrPsdK">human population control</a>, <a href="/facts/Biological_warfare/hLnbu8Sd">biological</a> or <a href="/facts/Chemical_warfare/zT4t2DGk">chemical</a> warfare, or testing of biological or chemical agents on a population, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:249" href="#fn:249"><sup>249</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:250" href="#fn:250"><sup>250</sup></a> </p> The claim has been dismissed by the <a href="/facts/Scientific_community/0YIPcVzE">scientific community</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:251" href="#fn:251"><sup>251</sup></a> There is no evidence that purported chemtrails differ from normal water-based contrails routinely left by high-flying aircraft under certain atmospheric conditions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:252" href="#fn:252"><sup>252</sup></a> Proponents have tried to prove that chemical spraying occurs, but their analyses have been flawed or based on misconceptions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:253" href="#fn:253"><sup>253</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:254" href="#fn:254"><sup>254</sup></a> Because of the conspiracy theory's persistence and questions about government involvement, scientists and government agencies around the world have repeatedly explained that the supposed chemtrails are in fact normal contrails.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:255" href="#fn:255"><sup>255</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:256" href="#fn:256"><sup>256</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:257" href="#fn:257"><sup>257</sup></a> <ul> <li>Climate change portal</li><li>Environment portal</li><li>Technology portal</li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Helwegen, Koen G.; Wieners, Claudia E.; Frank, Jason E.; Dijkstra, Henk A. (15 July 2019). "Complementing CO2 emission reduction by solar radiation management might strongly enhance future welfare". Earth System Dynamics. 10 (3): 453–472. doi:10.5194/esd-10-453-2019. ISSN 2190-4979. even if successful, SRM can not replace but only complement CO2 abatement. <a href="https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/453/2019/esd-10-453-2019.html" target="_blank">https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/453/2019/esd-10-453-2019.html</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Ipcc (9 June 2022). Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.006. ISBN 978-1-009-15794-0. <a href="978-1-009-15794-0" target="_blank">978-1-009-15794-0</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>World Meteorological Organization (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022. World Meteorological Organization. <a href="https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/" target="_blank">https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/</a> <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Futerman, Gideon; Adhikari, Mira; Duffey, Alistair; Fan, Yuanchao; Irvine, Peter; Gurevitch, Jessica; Wieners, Claudia (10 October 2023). "The interaction of Solar Radiation Modification and Earth System Tipping Elements". EGUsphere: 1–70. doi:10.5194/egusphere-2023-1753. <a href="https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1753/" target="_blank">https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1753/</a> <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>APRI (11 November 2024). "The justice and governance of solar geoengineering: Charting the path at COP29 and beyond". APRI. Archived from the original on 16 January 2025. Retrieved 13 February 2025. Across several major powers and international forums, the growing momentum in solar geoengineering technologies, assessments, and research and development is raising urgent ethical, justice and human and environmental rights issues that need to be addressed. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250116084242/https://afripoli.org/the-justice-and-governance-of-solar-geoengineering-charting-the-path-at-cop29-and-beyond" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20250116084242/https://afripoli.org/the-justice-and-governance-of-solar-geoengineering-charting-the-path-at-cop29-and-beyond</a> <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>"The Causes of Climate Change". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA. Archived from the original on 8 May 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2019. <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/causes" target="_blank">https://climate.nasa.gov/causes</a> <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas; Fridahl, Mathias; Haikola, Simon (29 April 2021). "Boundary Work and Interpretations in the IPCC Review Process of the Role of Bioenergy With Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in Limiting Global Warming to 1.5°C". Frontiers in Climate. 3. Bibcode:2021FrCli...3.3224H. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.643224. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffclim.2021.643224" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffclim.2021.643224</a> <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Carton, Wim (13 November 2020). "3 Carbon Unicorns and Fossil Futures: Whose Emission Reduction Pathways is the IPCC Performing?". Has It Come to This?. pp. 34–49. doi:10.36019/9781978809390-003. ISBN 978-1-9788-0939-0. Retrieved 24 August 2024. <a href="978-1-9788-0939-0" target="_blank">978-1-9788-0939-0</a> <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:13"><p>Emissions Gap Report 2024 (Report). UN environment programme. 17 October 2024. p. 32. As table 4.3 shows, a continuation of the current NDC scenarios would result in an increase in the emissions gap in 2035 of 4 GtCO2e for a 2°C warming limit, and 7 GtCO2e for a 1.5°C limit, whereas a continuation of the mitigation effort implied by current policies would lead to an even wider gap in 2035. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024</a> <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:14"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:15"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:16"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:17"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:18"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:18" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:19"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:19" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:20"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:20" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:21"><p>President’s Science Advisory Committee, Environmental Pollution Panel (1 November 1965). Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) <a href="https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/31937-document-2-white-house-report-restoring-quality-our-environment-report-environmental" target="_blank">https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/31937-document-2-white-house-report-restoring-quality-our-environment-report-environmental</a> <a href="#fnref:21" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:22"><p>"Geoengineering: A Short History". Foreign Policy. 2013. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 7 June 2021. <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/" target="_blank">https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/</a> <a href="#fnref:22" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:23"><p>Budyko, M. I. (1977). Climatic changes. Washington: American Geophysical Union. ISBN 978-0-87590-206-7. <a href="978-0-87590-206-7" target="_blank">978-0-87590-206-7</a> <a href="#fnref:23" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:24"><p>Budyko, M. I. (1977). "On present-day climatic changes". Tellus. 29 (3): 193–204. Bibcode:1977Tell...29..193B. doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1977.tb00725.x. <a href="http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/11347" target="_blank">http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/11347</a> <a href="#fnref:24" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:25"><p>Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. 1 January 1992. doi:10.17226/1605. ISBN 978-0-309-04386-1. Archived from the original on 21 November 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2021. <a href="978-0-309-04386-1" target="_blank">978-0-309-04386-1</a> <a href="#fnref:25" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:26"><p>Govindasamy, Bala; Caldeira, Ken (15 July 2000). "Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate CO₂-induced climate change". Geophysical Research Letters. 27 (14): 2141–2144. Bibcode:2000GeoRL..27.2141G. doi:10.1029/1999GL006086. ISSN 0094-8276. <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL006086" target="_blank">https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL006086</a> <a href="#fnref:26" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:27"><p>Keith, David W. (2000). "Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 25 (1): 245–284. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245. ISSN 1056-3466. <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245" target="_blank">https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.245</a> <a href="#fnref:27" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:28"><p>Crutzen, Paul J. (25 July 2006). "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?". Climatic Change. 77 (3): 211–220. Bibcode:2006ClCh...77..211C. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y. ISSN 1573-1480. S2CID 154081541. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9101-y</a> <a href="#fnref:28" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:29"><p>Royal Society of London, ed. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) <a href="978-0-85403-773-5" target="_blank">978-0-85403-773-5</a> <a href="#fnref:29" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:30"><p>National Research Council (10 February 2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309314824. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 11 September 2015 – via www.nap.edu. <a href="9780309314824" target="_blank">9780309314824</a> <a href="#fnref:30" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:31"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:31" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:32"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:32" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:33"><p>UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2023). "Report of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) on the ethics of climate engineering". Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677" target="_blank">https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677</a> <a href="#fnref:33" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:34"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:34" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:35"><p>European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (2024). Solar radiation modification. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2777/391614. ISBN 978-92-68-19568-0. <a href="978-92-68-19568-0" target="_blank">978-92-68-19568-0</a> <a href="#fnref:35" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:36"><p>National Research Council (10 February 2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309314824. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 11 September 2015 – via www.nap.edu. <a href="9780309314824" target="_blank">9780309314824</a> <a href="#fnref:36" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:37"><p>Ipcc (9 June 2022). Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.006. ISBN 978-1-009-15794-0. <a href="978-1-009-15794-0" target="_blank">978-1-009-15794-0</a> <a href="#fnref:37" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:38"><p>Ipcc (9 June 2022). Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.006. ISBN 978-1-009-15794-0. <a href="978-1-009-15794-0" target="_blank">978-1-009-15794-0</a> <a href="#fnref:38" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:39"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:39" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:40"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:40" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:41"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:41" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:42"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:42" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:43"><p>World Meteorological Organization (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022. World Meteorological Organization. <a href="https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/" target="_blank">https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/</a> <a href="#fnref:43" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:44"><p>World Meteorological Organization (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022. World Meteorological Organization. <a href="https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/" target="_blank">https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/</a> <a href="#fnref:44" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:45"><p>Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2016. <a href="978-0-309-31482-4" target="_blank">978-0-309-31482-4</a> <a href="#fnref:45" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:46"><p>Stjern, Camilla W.; Muri, Helene; Ahlm, Lars; Boucher, Olivier; Cole, Jason N. S.; Ji, Duoying; Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim; Kravitz, Ben; Lenton, Andrew; Moore, John C.; Niemeier, Ulrike; Phipps, Steven J.; Schmidt, Hauke; Watanabe, Shingo (19 January 2018). "Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 18 (2): 621–634. Bibcode:2018ACP....18..621S. doi:10.5194/acp-18-621-2018. hdl:10871/39951. ISSN 1680-7316. <a href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/621/2018/" target="_blank">https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/621/2018/</a> <a href="#fnref:46" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:47"><p>Ahlm, Lars; Jones, Andy; Stjern, Camilla W.; Muri, Helene; Kravitz, Ben; Kristjánsson, Jón Egill (6 November 2017). "Marine cloud brightening – as effective without clouds". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 17 (21): 13071–13087. Bibcode:2017ACP....1713071A. doi:10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017. hdl:10852/59113. ISSN 1680-7316. <a href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/13071/2017/" target="_blank">https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/13071/2017/</a> <a href="#fnref:47" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:48"><p>"Why making clouds brighter could fight climate change". BBC Science Focus Magazine. 24 January 2025. Retrieved 3 April 2025. <a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/could-marine-cloud-brightening-help-us-fight-climate-change" target="_blank">https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/could-marine-cloud-brightening-help-us-fight-climate-change</a> <a href="#fnref:48" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:49"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:49" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:50"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:50" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:51"><p>Collins, Sarah (16 October 2024). "Buying time: can science save the Great Barrier Reef?". www.cam.ac.uk. Retrieved 7 March 2025. <a href="https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/saving-great-barrier-reef" target="_blank">https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/saving-great-barrier-reef</a> <a href="#fnref:51" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:52"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:52" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:53"><p>Storelvmo, T.; Herger, N. (2014). "Cirrus cloud seeding has potential to cool climate". Geophysical Research Letters. 41 (20): 2014GL061652. doi:10.1002/2014GL061652 (inactive 9 February 2025).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2025 (link) <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:53" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:54"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:54" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:55"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:55" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:56"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:56" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:57"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:57" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:58"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:58" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:59"><p>Royal Society of London, ed. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) <a href="978-0-85403-773-5" target="_blank">978-0-85403-773-5</a> <a href="#fnref:59" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:60"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:60" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:61"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:61" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:62"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:62" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:63"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:63" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:64"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:64" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:65"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:65" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:66"><p>Smith, Wake (2020). "The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (11): 114004. Bibcode:2020ERL....15k4004S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Faba7e7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1748-9326%2Faba7e7</a> <a href="#fnref:66" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:67"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:67" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:68"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:68" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:69"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:69" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:70"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:70" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:71"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:71" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:72"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:72" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:73"><p>Proctor, Jonathan; Hsiang, Solomon; Burney, Jennifer; Burke, Marshall; Schlenker, Wolfram (August 2018). "Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions". Nature. 560 (7719): 480–483. Bibcode:2018Natur.560..480P. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0417-3. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 30089909. <a href="/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Bibcode_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:73" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:74"><p>Clark, Brendan; Robock, Alan; Xia, Lili; Rabin, Sam S.; Guarin, Jose R.; Hoogenboom, Gerrit; Jägermeyr, Jonas (February 2025). "Maize Yield Changes Under Sulfate Aerosol Climate Intervention Using Three Global Gridded Crop Models". Earth's Future. 13 (2). Bibcode:2025EaFut..1305269C. doi:10.1029/2024EF005269. ISSN 2328-4277. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2024EF005269" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029%2F2024EF005269</a> <a href="#fnref:74" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:75"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:75" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:76"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:76" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:77"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:77" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:78"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:78" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:79"><p>Birnbaum, Michael (27 February 2023). "A 'climate solution' that spies worry could trigger war". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 27 February 2023. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/27/geoengineering-security-war/" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/02/27/geoengineering-security-war/</a> <a href="#fnref:79" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:80"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:80" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:81"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:81" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:82"><p>Ricke, Katharine; Wan, Jessica S.; Saenger, Marissa; Lutsko, Nicholas J. (31 May 2023). "Hydrological Consequences of Solar Geoengineering". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 51 (1): 447–470. Bibcode:2023AREPS..51..447R. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-031920-083456. ISSN 0084-6597. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-earth-031920-083456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-earth-031920-083456</a> <a href="#fnref:82" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:83"><p>Ricke, Katharine; Wan, Jessica S.; Saenger, Marissa; Lutsko, Nicholas J. (31 May 2023). "Hydrological Consequences of Solar Geoengineering". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 51 (1): 447–470. Bibcode:2023AREPS..51..447R. doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-031920-083456. ISSN 0084-6597. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-earth-031920-083456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-earth-031920-083456</a> <a href="#fnref:83" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:84"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:84" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:85"><p>Erlick, Carynelisa; Frederick, John E (1998). "Effects of aerosols on the wavelength dependence of atmospheric transmission in the ultraviolet and visible 2. Continental and urban aerosols in clear skies". J. Geophys. Res. 103 (D18): 23275–23285. Bibcode:1998JGR...10323275E. doi:10.1029/98JD02119. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029%2F98JD02119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029%2F98JD02119</a> <a href="#fnref:85" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:86"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:86" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:87"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:87" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:88"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:88" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:89"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:89" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:90"><p>World Meteorological Organization (2022). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022. World Meteorological Organization. <a href="https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/" target="_blank">https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2022/downloads/</a> <a href="#fnref:90" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:91"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:91" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:92"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:92" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:93"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:93" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:94"><p>Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G. (13 January 2020). "Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research". Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 1 (1): 64–75. Bibcode:2020NRvEE...1...64K. doi:10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7. ISSN 2662-138X. S2CID 210169322. Archived from the original on 10 May 2021. Retrieved 21 March 2021. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0004-7" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0004-7</a> <a href="#fnref:94" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:95"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:95" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:96"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:96" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:97"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:97" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:98"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:98" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:99"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:99" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:100"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:100" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:101"><p>Hansen, James E.; Kharecha, Pushker; Sato, Makiko; Tselioudis, George; Kelly, Joseph; Bauer, Susanne E.; Ruedy, Reto (2025). "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 67 (1): 6–44. Bibcode:2025ESPSD..67....6H. doi:10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00139157.2025.2434494" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00139157.2025.2434494</a> <a href="#fnref:101" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:102"><p>Mann, Michael E. (2021). The new climate war: the fight to take back our planet (First ed.). Melbourne London: Scribe Publications. ISBN 978-1-5417-5823-0. <a href="978-1-5417-5823-0" target="_blank">978-1-5417-5823-0</a> <a href="#fnref:102" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:103"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:103" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:104"><p>Parson, Edward A.; Keith, David W. (18 October 2024). "Solar Geoengineering: History, Methods, Governance, Prospects". Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 49 (1): 337–366. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081911. ISSN 1543-5938. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-environ-112321-081911" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-environ-112321-081911</a> <a href="#fnref:104" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:105"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:105" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:106"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:106" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:107"><p>Reynolds, Jesse L. (23 May 2019). The Governance of Solar Geoengineering: Managing Climate Change in the Anthropocene (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316676790. ISBN 978-1-316-67679-0. S2CID 197798234. <a href="978-1-316-67679-0" target="_blank">978-1-316-67679-0</a> <a href="#fnref:107" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:108"><p>Nielsen, Jeffrey (10 January 2025). "The big green button: stratospheric aerosol injection as a geopolitical dilemma during strategic competition between the United States and China, and implications for expanding aerosol injection near-term research". Oxford Open Climate Change. 5 (1). doi:10.1093/oxfclm/kgaf009. ISSN 2634-4068. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/doi/10.1093/oxfclm/kgaf009/8042357" target="_blank">https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/doi/10.1093/oxfclm/kgaf009/8042357</a> <a href="#fnref:108" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:109"><p>Biermann, Frank; Oomen, Jeroen; Gupta, Aarti; Ali, Saleem H.; Conca, Ken; Hajer, Maarten A.; Kashwan, Prakash; Kotzé, Louis J.; Leach, Melissa; Messner, Dirk; Okereke, Chukwumerije; Persson, Åsa; Potočnik, Janez; Schlosberg, David; Scobie, Michelle (May 2022). "Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement". WIREs Climate Change. 13 (3). Bibcode:2022WIRCC..13E.754B. doi:10.1002/wcc.754. ISSN 1757-7780. <a href="https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754" target="_blank">https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754</a> <a href="#fnref:109" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:110"><p>Victor, David G. (2008). "On the regulation of geoengineering". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 24 (2): 322–336. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.536.5401. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grn018. <a href="/wiki/David_G._Victor" target="_blank">/wiki/David_G._Victor</a> <a href="#fnref:110" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:111"><p>Parson, Edward A. (April 2014). "Climate Engineering in Global Climate Governance: Implications for Participation and Linkage". Transnational Environmental Law. 3 (1): 89–110. Bibcode:2014TELaw...3...89P. doi:10.1017/S2047102513000496. ISSN 2047-1025. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2047102513000496/type/journal_article" target="_blank">https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2047102513000496/type/journal_article</a> <a href="#fnref:111" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:112"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:112" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:113"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:113" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:114"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:114" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:115"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:115" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:116"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis – Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/</a> <a href="#fnref:116" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:117"><p>Parker, Andy; Irvine, Peter J. (March 2018). "The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering". Earth's Future. 6 (3): 456–467. Bibcode:2018EaFut...6..456P. doi:10.1002/2017EF000735. S2CID 48359567. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2017EF000735" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002%2F2017EF000735</a> <a href="#fnref:117" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:118"><p>Rabitz, Florian (16 April 2019). "Governing the termination problem in solar radiation management". Environmental Politics. 28 (3): 502–522. Bibcode:2019EnvPo..28..502R. doi:10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879. ISSN 0964-4016. S2CID 158738431. Archived from the original on 11 June 2021. Retrieved 11 June 2021. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879" target="_blank">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879</a> <a href="#fnref:118" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:119"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:119" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:120"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:120" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:121"><p>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: Mitigation of Climate Change – Working Group III Contribution. <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/" target="_blank">https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/</a> <a href="#fnref:121" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:122"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:122" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:123"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:123" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:124"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:124" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:125"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:125" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:126"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:126" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:127"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:127" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:128"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:128" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:129"><p>International Law Commission (2021). Draft guidelines on the protection of the atmosphere (PDF). United Nations. <a href="https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/8_8_2021.pdf" target="_blank">https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/8_8_2021.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:129" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:130"><p>Geoengineering in relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD technical series. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2012. ISBN 978-92-9225-429-2. <a href="978-92-9225-429-2" target="_blank">978-92-9225-429-2</a> <a href="#fnref:130" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:131"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:131" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:132"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:132" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:133"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:133" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:134"><p>Convention on Biological Diversity, Conference of the Parties to the (8 December 2016). Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, XIII/14. Climate-related Geoengineering (PDF).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) <a href="https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-14-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-14-en.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:134" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:135"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:135" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:136"><p>Temple, James (20 January 2023). "What Mexico's planned geoengineering restrictions mean for the future of the field". MIT Technology Review. <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/20/1067146/what-mexicos-planned-geoengineering-restrictions-mean-for-the-future-of-the-field/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/01/20/1067146/what-mexicos-planned-geoengineering-restrictions-mean-for-the-future-of-the-field/</a> <a href="#fnref:136" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:137"><p>Jacob, Manon (27 February 2025). "Proposed 'weather control' bans surge across US states". AFP. <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-011847281.html" target="_blank">https://uk.news.yahoo.com/proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-011847281.html</a> <a href="#fnref:137" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:138"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:138" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:139"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:139" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:140"><p>UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2023). "Report of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) on the ethics of climate engineering". Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677" target="_blank">https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677</a> <a href="#fnref:140" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:141"><p>Rayner, Steve; Heyward, Clare; Kruger, Tim; Pidgeon, Nick; Redgwell, Catherine; Savulescu, Julian (December 2013). "The Oxford Principles". Climatic Change. 121 (3): 499–512. Bibcode:2013ClCh..121..499R. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2. ISSN 0165-0009. <a href="https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2" target="_blank">https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2</a> <a href="#fnref:141" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:142"><p>Vasquez, Krystal (24 October 2024). "AGU publishes ethical framework for geoengineering". Chemical & Engineering News. <a href="https://cen.acs.org/environment/climate-change/AGU-publishes-ethical-framework-geoengineering/102/i34" target="_blank">https://cen.acs.org/environment/climate-change/AGU-publishes-ethical-framework-geoengineering/102/i34</a> <a href="#fnref:142" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:143"><p>Union, American Geophysical (17 October 2024), Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research, doi:10.22541/essoar.172917365.53105072/v1, retrieved 22 March 2025 <a href="https://essopenarchive.org/users/270408/articles/1233540-ethical-framework-principles-for-climate-intervention-research?commit=8d6dbfcd336120d3d393d5c1616df579ca3b98ef" target="_blank">https://essopenarchive.org/users/270408/articles/1233540-ethical-framework-principles-for-climate-intervention-research?commit=8d6dbfcd336120d3d393d5c1616df579ca3b98ef</a> <a href="#fnref:143" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:144"><p>James Temple (18 April 2017). "The Growing Case for Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 9 February 2025. <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/18/152336/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/04/18/152336/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/</a> <a href="#fnref:144" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:145"><p>"Fuel to the Fire: How Geoengineering Threatens to Entrench Fossil Fuels and Accelerate the Climate Crisis (Feb 2019)". Center for International Environmental Law. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuel-to-the-fire-how-geoengineering-threatens-to-entrench-fossil-fuels-and-accelerate-the-climate-crisis-feb-2019/" target="_blank">https://www.ciel.org/reports/fuel-to-the-fire-how-geoengineering-threatens-to-entrench-fossil-fuels-and-accelerate-the-climate-crisis-feb-2019/</a> <a href="#fnref:145" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:146"><p>Hamilton, Clive (12 February 2015). "Opinion | The Risks of Climate Engineering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 10 June 2021. Retrieved 11 June 2021. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/opinion/the-risks-of-climate-engineering.html</a> <a href="#fnref:146" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:147"><p>SRM360 (14 May 2025). "SRM Funding Overview". SRM360.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/</a> <a href="#fnref:147" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:148"><p>"An open letter regarding research on reflecting sunlight to reduce the risks of climate change". climate intervention research letter. Retrieved 12 January 2025. <a href="https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/" target="_blank">https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/</a> <a href="#fnref:148" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:149"><p>"Home - call-for-balance.com". www.call-for-balance.com. Retrieved 12 January 2025. <a href="https://www.call-for-balance.com/" target="_blank">https://www.call-for-balance.com/</a> <a href="#fnref:149" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:150"><p>Hansen, James E.; Kharecha, Pushker; Sato, Makiko; Tselioudis, George; Kelly, Joseph; Bauer, Susanne E.; Ruedy, Reto (2025). "Global Warming Has Accelerated: Are the United Nations and the Public Well-Informed?". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 67 (1): 6–44. Bibcode:2025ESPSD..67....6H. doi:10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00139157.2025.2434494" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00139157.2025.2434494</a> <a href="#fnref:150" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:151"><p>Royal Society of London, ed. (2009). Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty. London. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) <a href="978-0-85403-773-5" target="_blank">978-0-85403-773-5</a> <a href="#fnref:151" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:152"><p>"Climate Change: Have We Lost the Battle?". www.imeche.org. November 2009. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/climate-change-have-we-lost-the-battle" target="_blank">https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/climate-change-have-we-lost-the-battle</a> <a href="#fnref:152" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:153"><p>"Give research into solar geoengineering a chance". Nature. 593 (7858): 167. 12 May 2021. Bibcode:2021Natur.593..167.. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-01243-0. PMID 33981056. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-01243-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fd41586-021-01243-0</a> <a href="#fnref:153" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:154"><p>Reekie, Tristan; Howard, Will (April 2012). "Geoengineering" (PDF). Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/sites/default/files/47019_Chief-Scientist-_OccassionalPaperSeries_lores.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/sites/default/files/47019_Chief-Scientist-_OccassionalPaperSeries_lores.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:154" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:155"><p>Brom, F. (2013). Riphagen, M (ed.). Klimaatengineering: hype, hoop of wanhoop?. Rathenau Instituut. ISBN 978-90-77364-51-2. <a href="978-90-77364-51-2" target="_blank">978-90-77364-51-2</a> <a href="#fnref:155" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:156"><p>National Research Council (10 February 2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309314824. Archived from the original on 14 December 2019. Retrieved 11 September 2015 – via www.nap.edu. <a href="9780309314824" target="_blank">9780309314824</a> <a href="#fnref:156" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:157"><p>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (25 March 2021). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 17 April 2021. <a href="978-0-309-67605-2" target="_blank">978-0-309-67605-2</a> <a href="#fnref:157" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:158"><p>"Position statement on climate intervention". AGU. January 2018. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.agu.org/share-and-advocate/share/policymakers/position-statements/climate-intervention-requirements" target="_blank">https://www.agu.org/share-and-advocate/share/policymakers/position-statements/climate-intervention-requirements</a> <a href="#fnref:158" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:159"><p>Climate Science Special Report (Report). U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC. 2017. pp. 1–470. <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/" target="_blank">https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/</a> <a href="#fnref:159" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:160"><p>"Reflecting Sunlight to Reduce Climate Risk: Priorities for Research and International Cooperation". Council on Foreign Relations. April 2022. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://www.cfr.org/report/reflecting-sunlight-reduce-climate-risk" target="_blank">https://www.cfr.org/report/reflecting-sunlight-reduce-climate-risk</a> <a href="#fnref:160" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:161"><p>"Research to Inform Decisions about Climate Intervention". www.wcrp-climate.org. December 2024. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview" target="_blank">https://www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview</a> <a href="#fnref:161" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:162"><p>"One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment". UN Environment Programme. 2023. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment" target="_blank">https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment</a> <a href="#fnref:162" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:163"><p>UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (2023). "Report of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) on the ethics of climate engineering". Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677" target="_blank">https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677</a> <a href="#fnref:163" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:164"><p>European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation and Group of Chief Scientific Advisors (2024). Solar radiation modification. Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2777/391614. ISBN 978-92-68-19568-0. <a href="978-92-68-19568-0" target="_blank">978-92-68-19568-0</a> <a href="#fnref:164" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:165"><p>"UK government's view on greenhouse gas removal technologies and solar radiation management". GOV.UK. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/geo-engineering-research-the-government-s-view/uk-governments-view-on-greenhouse-gas-removal-technologies-and-solar-radiation-management" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/geo-engineering-research-the-government-s-view/uk-governments-view-on-greenhouse-gas-removal-technologies-and-solar-radiation-management</a> <a href="#fnref:165" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:166"><p>Canada, Environment and Climate Change (16 February 2024). "Environment and Climate Change Canada Science Strategy 2024 to 2029". www.canada.ca. Retrieved 24 May 2025. <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/science-technology/science-strategy/2024-2029.html" target="_blank">https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/science-technology/science-strategy/2024-2029.html</a> <a href="#fnref:166" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:167"><p>Bundesumweltministeriums (6 December 2023). "Klimaaußenpolitik-Strategie der Bundesregierung (KAP)- BMUV - Download". bmuv.de (in German). Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.bmuv.de/DL3205" target="_blank">https://www.bmuv.de/DL3205</a> <a href="#fnref:167" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:168"><p>Bundesumweltministeriums (6 December 2023). "Klimaaußenpolitik-Strategie der Bundesregierung (KAP)- BMUV - Download". bmuv.de (in German). Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.bmuv.de/DL3205" target="_blank">https://www.bmuv.de/DL3205</a> <a href="#fnref:168" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:169"><p>Hunt, Hugh; Fitzgerald, Shaun (17 February 2025). "Geoengineering is politically off-limits – could a Trump presidency change that?". The Conversation. Retrieved 18 February 2025. <a href="https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-is-politically-off-limits-could-a-trump-presidency-change-that-248589" target="_blank">https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-is-politically-off-limits-could-a-trump-presidency-change-that-248589</a> <a href="#fnref:169" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:170"><p>"Research to Inform Decisions about Climate Intervention". www.wcrp-climate.org. December 2024. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview" target="_blank">https://www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview</a> <a href="#fnref:170" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:171"><p>Hiar, Corbin (12 June 2024). "EDF tight lipped about new geoengineering research program". E&E News. <a href="https://www.eenews.net/articles/edf-tight-lipped-about-new-geoengineering-research-program/" target="_blank">https://www.eenews.net/articles/edf-tight-lipped-about-new-geoengineering-research-program/</a> <a href="#fnref:171" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:172"><p>Environmental Defense Fund (22 October 2024). "Studying the impacts of Solar Radiation Modification". <a href="https://www.edf.org/studying-impacts-solar-radiation-modification" target="_blank">https://www.edf.org/studying-impacts-solar-radiation-modification</a> <a href="#fnref:172" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:173"><p>"About". The Degrees Initiative. Retrieved 10 October 2023. <a href="https://www.degrees.ngo/about/" target="_blank">https://www.degrees.ngo/about/</a> <a href="#fnref:173" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:174"><p>"About". The Degrees Initiative. Retrieved 10 October 2023. <a href="https://www.degrees.ngo/about/" target="_blank">https://www.degrees.ngo/about/</a> <a href="#fnref:174" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:175"><p>Chalmin, Anja. "Global Southwashing: How The Degrees Initiative is imposing its solar geoengineering agenda onto climate research in the Global South - Geoengineering Monitor". www.geoengineeringmonitor.org. Retrieved 18 December 2024. <a href="https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/the-degrees-initiative" target="_blank">https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/the-degrees-initiative</a> <a href="#fnref:175" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:176"><p>https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/ <a href="https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/" target="_blank">https://www.operaatioarktis.fi/</a> <a href="#fnref:176" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:177"><p>"About". SilverLining. Retrieved 19 December 2024. <a href="https://www.silverlining.ngo/about" target="_blank">https://www.silverlining.ngo/about</a> <a href="#fnref:177" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:178"><p>"About". SilverLining. Retrieved 19 December 2024. <a href="https://www.silverlining.ngo/about" target="_blank">https://www.silverlining.ngo/about</a> <a href="#fnref:178" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:179"><p>"SilverLining Announces $20.5 Million in Funding to Advance its Governance and Equity Initiatives on Near-Term Climate Risk and Climate Intervention". SilverLining. Retrieved 18 December 2024. <a href="https://www.silverlining.ngo/insights/silverlining-announces-20-5-million-in-funding" target="_blank">https://www.silverlining.ngo/insights/silverlining-announces-20-5-million-in-funding</a> <a href="#fnref:179" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:180"><p>Temple, James (14 June 2024). "This London nonprofit is now one of the biggest backers of geoengineering research". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 15 January 2025. <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/14/1093778/foundations-are-lining-up-to-fund-geoengineering-research/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/14/1093778/foundations-are-lining-up-to-fund-geoengineering-research/</a> <a href="#fnref:180" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:181"><p>"About". DSG. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://sgdeliberation.org/about/" target="_blank">https://sgdeliberation.org/about/</a> <a href="#fnref:181" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:182"><p>"C2G Mission". C2G. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://www.c2g2.net/c2g-mission/" target="_blank">https://www.c2g2.net/c2g-mission/</a> <a href="#fnref:182" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:183"><p>"Commission". Overshoot Commission. Retrieved 28 October 2024. <a href="https://www.overshootcommission.org/commissioners" target="_blank">https://www.overshootcommission.org/commissioners</a> <a href="#fnref:183" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:184"><p>"Reducing the Risks of Climate Overshoot". Overshoot Commission. 2023. Retrieved 11 March 2024. <a href="https://www.overshootcommission.org/report" target="_blank">https://www.overshootcommission.org/report</a> <a href="#fnref:184" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:185"><p>"Homepage". SRM360. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://srm360.org/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/</a> <a href="#fnref:185" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:186"><p>"Governance and Funding". SRM360. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://srm360.org/funding/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/funding/</a> <a href="#fnref:186" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:187"><p>"LAD Climate Fund: Clear-Eyed, Comprehensive Climate Strategy". LAD Climate Fund. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://lad-climate.org/" target="_blank">https://lad-climate.org/</a> <a href="#fnref:187" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:188"><p>"About". Reflective. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://reflective.org/about/" target="_blank">https://reflective.org/about/</a> <a href="#fnref:188" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:189"><p>"About". Reflective. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://reflective.org/about/" target="_blank">https://reflective.org/about/</a> <a href="#fnref:189" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:190"><p>SRM360 (14 May 2025). "SRM Funding Overview". SRM360.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/</a> <a href="#fnref:190" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:191"><p>SRM360 (14 May 2025). "SRM Funding Overview". SRM360.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/</a> <a href="#fnref:191" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:192"><p>"Funding for Solar Geoengineering from 2008 to 2018". geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu. 13 November 2018. Archived from the original on 6 June 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2021. <a href="https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/funding-solar-geoengineering" target="_blank">https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/funding-solar-geoengineering</a> <a href="#fnref:192" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:193"><p>Temple, James (1 July 2022). "The US government is developing a solar geoengineering research plan". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 16 April 2022. <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/01/1055324/the-us-government-is-developing-a-solar-geoengineering-research-plan/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/01/1055324/the-us-government-is-developing-a-solar-geoengineering-research-plan/</a> <a href="#fnref:193" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:194"><p>Temple, James (14 June 2024). "This London nonprofit is now one of the biggest backers of geoengineering research". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 15 January 2025. <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/14/1093778/foundations-are-lining-up-to-fund-geoengineering-research/" target="_blank">https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/06/14/1093778/foundations-are-lining-up-to-fund-geoengineering-research/</a> <a href="#fnref:194" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:195"><p>Carrington, Damian (22 April 2025). "UK scientists to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments". the Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2025. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments</a> <a href="#fnref:195" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:196"><p>Flavelle, Christopher; Gelles, David (13 September 2024). "U.K. to Fund 'Small-Scale' Outdoor Geoengineering Tests". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 15 January 2025. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/climate/united-kingdom-geoengineering-research.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/13/climate/united-kingdom-geoengineering-research.html</a> <a href="#fnref:196" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:197"><p>"Exploring Climate Cooling". ARIA. Retrieved 15 January 2025. <a href="https://www.aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/future-proofing-our-climate-and-weather/exploring-climate-cooling" target="_blank">https://www.aria.org.uk/opportunity-spaces/future-proofing-our-climate-and-weather/exploring-climate-cooling</a> <a href="#fnref:197" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:198"><p>Carrington, Damian (22 April 2025). "UK scientists to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments". the Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2025. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/22/uk-scientists-outdoor-geoengineering-experiments</a> <a href="#fnref:198" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:199"><p>"Modelling the impact of solar radiation modification". UKRI – UK Research and Innovation. 3 April 2025. Retrieved 27 April 2025. <a href="https://www.ukri.org/news/modelling-the-impact-of-solar-radiation-modification/" target="_blank">https://www.ukri.org/news/modelling-the-impact-of-solar-radiation-modification/</a> <a href="#fnref:199" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:200"><p>SRM360 (14 May 2025). "SRM Funding Overview". SRM360.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) <a href="https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/article/srm-funding-overview/</a> <a href="#fnref:200" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:201"><p>"Silicon Valley's Elite Pour Money Into Blotting Out the Sun". Bloomberg.com. 25 October 2024. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-25/silicon-valley-s-elite-back-controversial-research-into-blocking-the-sun?srnd=homepage-europe" target="_blank">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-25/silicon-valley-s-elite-back-controversial-research-into-blocking-the-sun?srnd=homepage-europe</a> <a href="#fnref:201" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:202"><p>"Silicon Valley's Elite Pour Money Into Blotting Out the Sun". Bloomberg.com. 25 October 2024. Retrieved 10 December 2024. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-25/silicon-valley-s-elite-back-controversial-research-into-blocking-the-sun?srnd=homepage-europe" target="_blank">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-25/silicon-valley-s-elite-back-controversial-research-into-blocking-the-sun?srnd=homepage-europe</a> <a href="#fnref:202" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:203"><p>Biermann, Frank; Oomen, Jeroen; Gupta, Aarti; Ali, Saleem H.; Conca, Ken; Hajer, Maarten A.; Kashwan, Prakash; Kotzé, Louis J.; Leach, Melissa; Messner, Dirk; Okereke, Chukwumerije; Persson, Åsa; Potočnik, Janez; Schlosberg, David; Scobie, Michelle (May 2022). "Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement". WIREs Climate Change. 13 (3). Bibcode:2022WIRCC..13E.754B. doi:10.1002/wcc.754. ISSN 1757-7780. <a href="https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754" target="_blank">https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754</a> <a href="#fnref:203" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:204"><p>Flavelle, Christopher (26 September 2024). "Conspiracy Theorists and Vaccine Skeptics Have a New Target: Geoengineering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/climate/geoengineering-conspiracy-theorists-skeptics.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/climate/geoengineering-conspiracy-theorists-skeptics.html</a> <a href="#fnref:204" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:205"><p>"Proposed 'weather control' bans surge across US states". AFP. 27 February 2025. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250227-proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-across-us-states" target="_blank">https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250227-proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-across-us-states</a> <a href="#fnref:205" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:206"><p>Maruf, Ramishah; Miller, Brandon (25 March 2025). "State lawmakers are looking to ban non-existent 'chemtrails.' It could have real-life side effects". CNN. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html" target="_blank">https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html</a> <a href="#fnref:206" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:207"><p>Putman, Ceri (1 April 2025). "A Growing Number of US States Consider Bills to Ban Geoengineering". SRM360. <a href="https://srm360.org/perspective/us-states-consider-bills-to-ban-geoengineering/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/perspective/us-states-consider-bills-to-ban-geoengineering/</a> <a href="#fnref:207" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:208"><p>"CAN Position: Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), September 2019". Climate Action Network. Retrieved 9 June 2024. <a href="https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-solar-radiation-modification-srm-september-2019/" target="_blank">https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-solar-radiation-modification-srm-september-2019/</a> <a href="#fnref:208" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:209"><p>"Climate & Geoengineering | ETC Group". www.etcgroup.org. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://www.etcgroup.org/issues/climate-geoengineering" target="_blank">https://www.etcgroup.org/issues/climate-geoengineering</a> <a href="#fnref:209" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:210"><p>"Geoengineering | Heinrich Böll Stiftung". www.boell.de. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://www.boell.de/en/tags/geoengineering" target="_blank">https://www.boell.de/en/tags/geoengineering</a> <a href="#fnref:210" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:211"><p>"Geoengineering". Center for International Environmental Law. Retrieved 10 March 2024. <a href="https://www.ciel.org/issue/geoengineering/" target="_blank">https://www.ciel.org/issue/geoengineering/</a> <a href="#fnref:211" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:212"><p>"CAN Position: Solar Radiation Modification (SRM), September 2019". Climate Action Network. Retrieved 9 June 2024. <a href="https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-solar-radiation-modification-srm-september-2019/" target="_blank">https://climatenetwork.org/resource/can-position-solar-radiation-modification-srm-september-2019/</a> <a href="#fnref:212" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:213"><p>Dunleavy, Haley (7 July 2021). "An Indigenous Group's Objection to Geoengineering Spurs a Debate About Social Justice in Climate Science". Inside Climate News. Archived from the original on 19 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021. <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07072021/sami-sweden-objection-geoengineering-justice-climate-science/" target="_blank">https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07072021/sami-sweden-objection-geoengineering-justice-climate-science/</a> <a href="#fnref:213" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:214"><p>"Open letter requesting cancellation of plans for geoengineering related test flights in Kiruna". Sámiráđđi (in Norwegian). 2 March 2021. Archived from the original on 19 July 2021. Retrieved 19 July 2021. <a href="https://www.saamicouncil.net/news-archive/open-letter-requesting-cancellation-of-plans-for-geoengineering" target="_blank">https://www.saamicouncil.net/news-archive/open-letter-requesting-cancellation-of-plans-for-geoengineering</a> <a href="#fnref:214" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:215"><p>"Signatories". Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement. Retrieved 14 March 2024. <a href="https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/" target="_blank">https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/signatories/</a> <a href="#fnref:215" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:216"><p>"Endorsements". Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement. Retrieved 14 March 2024. <a href="https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/endorsements/" target="_blank">https://www.solargeoeng.org/non-use-agreement/endorsements/</a> <a href="#fnref:216" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:217"><p>Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement (2022). "Press Release - Global coalition of leading scientists calls for International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering" (PDF). <a href="https://www.solargeoeng.org/wp-content/library/downloads/EN_SolarGeoeng_PressRelease_220116.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.solargeoeng.org/wp-content/library/downloads/EN_SolarGeoeng_PressRelease_220116.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:217" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:218"><p>Biermann, Frank; Oomen, Jeroen; Gupta, Aarti; Ali, Saleem H.; Conca, Ken; Hajer, Maarten A.; Kashwan, Prakash; Kotzé, Louis J.; Leach, Melissa; Messner, Dirk; Okereke, Chukwumerije; Persson, Åsa; Potočnik, Janez; Schlosberg, David; Scobie, Michelle (May 2022). "Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement". WIREs Climate Change. 13 (3). Bibcode:2022WIRCC..13E.754B. doi:10.1002/wcc.754. ISSN 1757-7780. <a href="https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754" target="_blank">https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.754</a> <a href="#fnref:218" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:219"><p>Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement. "Funding Transparency". <a href="https://www.solargeoeng.org/funding-transparency/" target="_blank">https://www.solargeoeng.org/funding-transparency/</a> <a href="#fnref:219" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:220"><p>"Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement by Biermann et al. ( DOI : 10.1002/wcc.754)". WIREs Climate Change. 14 (5). September 2023. Bibcode:2023WIRCC..14E.835.. doi:10.1002/wcc.835. ISSN 1757-7780. <a href="https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.835" target="_blank">https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.835</a> <a href="#fnref:220" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:221"><p>Parson, Edward A.; Buck, Holly J.; Jinnah, Sikina; Moreno-Cruz, Juan; Nicholson, Simon (September 2024). "Toward an evidence-informed, responsible, and inclusive debate on solar geoengineering: A response to the proposed non-use agreement". WIREs Climate Change. 15 (5). Bibcode:2024WIRCC..15E.903P. doi:10.1002/wcc.903. ISSN 1757-7780. <a href="https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.903" target="_blank">https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.903</a> <a href="#fnref:221" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:222"><p>White, Rebekah (3 April 2025). "Failure to Communicate". Science. 388 (6742): 20–24. doi:10.1126/science.z0g6jc4. PMID 40179177. <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/geoengineering-fight-climate-change-if-public-can-convinced" target="_blank">https://www.science.org/content/article/geoengineering-fight-climate-change-if-public-can-convinced</a> <a href="#fnref:222" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:223"><p>Flavelle, Christopher (26 September 2024). "Conspiracy Theorists and Vaccine Skeptics Have a New Target: Geoengineering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/climate/geoengineering-conspiracy-theorists-skeptics.html" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/climate/geoengineering-conspiracy-theorists-skeptics.html</a> <a href="#fnref:223" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:224"><p>"Proposed 'weather control' bans surge across US states". AFP. 27 February 2025. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250227-proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-across-us-states" target="_blank">https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250227-proposed-weather-control-bans-surge-across-us-states</a> <a href="#fnref:224" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:225"><p>Maruf, Ramishah; Miller, Brandon (25 March 2025). "State lawmakers are looking to ban non-existent 'chemtrails.' It could have real-life side effects". CNN. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html" target="_blank">https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html</a> <a href="#fnref:225" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:226"><p>LegiScan. "Roll Call: TN SB2691 | 2023-2024 | 113th General Assembly". <a href="https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB2691/id/1418530" target="_blank">https://legiscan.com/TN/rollcall/SB2691/id/1418530</a> <a href="#fnref:226" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:227"><p>Putman, Ceri (1 April 2025). "A Growing Number of US States Consider Bills to Ban Geoengineering". SRM360. <a href="https://srm360.org/news-reaction/us-states-consider-bills-to-ban-geoengineering/" target="_blank">https://srm360.org/news-reaction/us-states-consider-bills-to-ban-geoengineering/</a> <a href="#fnref:227" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:228"><p>Maruf, Ramishah; Miller, Brandon (25 March 2025). "State lawmakers are looking to ban non-existent 'chemtrails.' It could have real-life side effects". CNN. Retrieved 4 April 2025. <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html" target="_blank">https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/25/climate/state-bills-chemtrails-geoengineering-ban/index.html</a> <a href="#fnref:228" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:229"><p>United States Environmental Protection Agency (15 April 2025). "EPA Demands Answers from Unregulated Geoengineering Start-Up Launching Sulfur Dioxide into the Air". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 18 April 2025. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-demands-answers-unregulated-geoengineering-start-launching-sulfur-dioxide-air" target="_blank">https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-demands-answers-unregulated-geoengineering-start-launching-sulfur-dioxide-air</a> <a href="#fnref:229" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:230"><p>"Make Sunsets". makesunsets.com. Retrieved 9 March 2024. <a href="https://makesunsets.com/" target="_blank">https://makesunsets.com/</a> <a href="#fnref:230" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:231"><p>Simon, Julia (21 April 2024). "Startups want to cool Earth by reflecting sunlight. There are few rules and big risks". NPR. Retrieved 11 June 2024. <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/04/21/1244357506/earth-day-solar-geoengineering-climate-make-sunsets-stardust" target="_blank">https://www.npr.org/2024/04/21/1244357506/earth-day-solar-geoengineering-climate-make-sunsets-stardust</a> <a href="#fnref:231" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:232"><p>Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos, Gobierno de México. "La experimentación con geoingeniería solar no será permitida en México". gob.mx (in Spanish). Retrieved 16 October 2024. <a href="https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-geoingenieria-solar-no-sera-permitida-en-mexico?idiom=es" target="_blank">https://www.gob.mx/semarnat/prensa/la-experimentacion-con-geoingenieria-solar-no-sera-permitida-en-mexico?idiom=es</a> <a href="#fnref:232" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:233"><p>de la Garza, Alejandro (21 February 2023). "Exclusive: Inside a Controversial Startup's Risky Attempt to Control Our Climate". "'Skeptics of solar geoengineering experimentation as well as proponents are rarely unified,' says Kevin Surprise, a lecturer on environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College. "I have not seen a single person in the field say this is a good idea.'" <a href="https://time.com/6257102/geoengineering-make-sunsets-us-balloon-launch-exclusive/" target="_blank">https://time.com/6257102/geoengineering-make-sunsets-us-balloon-launch-exclusive/</a> <a href="#fnref:233" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:234"><p>United States Environmental Protection Agency (15 April 2025). "EPA Demands Answers from Unregulated Geoengineering Start-Up Launching Sulfur Dioxide into the Air". www.epa.gov. Retrieved 18 April 2025. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-demands-answers-unregulated-geoengineering-start-launching-sulfur-dioxide-air" target="_blank">https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-demands-answers-unregulated-geoengineering-start-launching-sulfur-dioxide-air</a> <a href="#fnref:234" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:235"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:235" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:236"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:236" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:237"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:237" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:238"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:238" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:239"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:239" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:240"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:240" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:241"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:241" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:242"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:242" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:243"><p>Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission (9 December 2024). Solar radiation modification: evidence review report (Report). SAPEA. doi:10.5281/zenodo.14283096. <a href="https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096" target="_blank">https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.14283096</a> <a href="#fnref:243" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:244"><p>Science, Carnegie (12 August 2016). ""Chemtrails" not real, say leading atmospheric science experts". Carnegie Institution for Science. Archived from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2019. Some groups and individuals erroneously believe that the long-lasting condensation trails, or contrails, left behind aircraft are evidence of a secret large-scale spraying program. They call these imagined features "chemtrails". <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161220071351/https://carnegiescience.edu/node/2077" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20161220071351/https://carnegiescience.edu/node/2077</a> <a href="#fnref:244" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:245"><p>Fraser, Stephen (2009). "Phantom menace? Are conspirators using aircraft to pollute the sky?". Current Science. 94 (14): 8–9. ProQuest 195877531. Some theorists speculate that the goal is population control; some say it's climate modification; others say it's military weapons testing. <a href="/wiki/ProQuest" target="_blank">/wiki/ProQuest</a> <a href="#fnref:245" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:246"><p>Watson, Traci (7 March 2001). "Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails". USA Today. p. A.04. Archived from the original on 17 December 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2021. Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point. 'If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, Well, you're just part of the conspiracy, says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. 'Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.' <a href="https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm" target="_blank">https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:246" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:247"><p>James, Nigel (2003). "Contrails". In Knight, Peter (ed.). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 197–199. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9. there are no books on the subject to date. Reports on contrails are carried by dedicated websites...Mainstream news agencies rarely report on concerns over contrails, and when they do it is in terms of anti-government "paranoia". When USA Today ran a contrail story it likened the story to something out of The X-Files, arguing that it was only those who are suspicious of the government who believe that lines in the sky are evidence of malfeasance. Some suggested that they are trying to slow down global warming with compounds that reflect sunlight into the sky. <a href="978-1-57607-812-9" target="_blank">978-1-57607-812-9</a> <a href="#fnref:247" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:248"><p>Watson, Traci (7 March 2001). "Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails". USA Today. p. A.04. Archived from the original on 17 December 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2021. Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point. 'If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, Well, you're just part of the conspiracy, says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. 'Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.' <a href="https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm" target="_blank">https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:248" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:249"><p>Fraser, Stephen (2009). "Phantom menace? Are conspirators using aircraft to pollute the sky?". Current Science. 94 (14): 8–9. ProQuest 195877531. Some theorists speculate that the goal is population control; some say it's climate modification; others say it's military weapons testing. <a href="/wiki/ProQuest" target="_blank">/wiki/ProQuest</a> <a href="#fnref:249" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:250"><p>Schlatter, Thomas (9 March 2001). "Weather Queries: Chemtrail Controversy". Weatherwise. Archived from the original on 9 March 2001. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010309094441/http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20010309094441/http://www.weatherwise.org/qr/qry.chemtrail.html</a> <a href="#fnref:250" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:251"><p>Shearer, Christine; West, Mick; Caldeira, Ken; Davis, Steven J. (1 January 2016). "Quantifying expert consensus against the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program". Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (8): 084011. Bibcode:2016ERL....11h4011S. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011. <a href="/wiki/Mick_West" target="_blank">/wiki/Mick_West</a> <a href="#fnref:251" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:252"><p>"Contrails Facts" (PDF). US Air Force. 13 October 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 March 2013. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20130306001902/http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-051013-001.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:252" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:253"><p>Radford, Benjamin (March–April 2009). "Curious contrails: death from the sky?". Skeptical Inquirer. 33 (2): 25. <a href="/wiki/Benjamin_Radford" target="_blank">/wiki/Benjamin_Radford</a> <a href="#fnref:253" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:254"><p>Kreidler, Marc (1 September 2008). "The 'Chemtrail Conspiracy'". Skeptical Inquirer. 18 (3). ISSN 0194-6730. OCLC 819017418. Retrieved 6 May 2020. <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/chemtrail-conspiracy/" target="_blank">https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/chemtrail-conspiracy/</a> <a href="#fnref:254" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:255"><p>Watson, Traci (7 March 2001). "Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails". USA Today. p. A.04. Archived from the original on 17 December 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2021. Exasperated by persistent questions, the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joined forces last fall to publish a fact sheet explaining the science of contrail formation. A few months earlier, the Air Force had put out its own fact sheet, which tries to refute its opponents' arguments point by point. 'If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it's, Well, you're just part of the conspiracy, says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. 'Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.' <a href="https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm" target="_blank">https://archive.today/20121217194017/http://www.usatoday.com/weather/science/2001-03-07-contrails.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:255" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:256"><p>Cama, Timothy (13 March 2015). "EPA confronts 'chemtrails' conspiracy talk". The Hill. Retrieved 10 December 2016. Conspiracy theorists say that government officials or others are using jets to spray harmful chemicals into the atmosphere. They cite the contrails left by jets as evidence of the chemicals. The EPA has added a new notice to its website, which links to a fact sheet explaining that the trails left by jets in the atmosphere are only ice particles and contain no harmful chemicals. "Contrails are line-shaped clouds or 'Condensation trails' composed of ice particles that are visible behind jet aircraft engines under certain atmospheric conditions and at times can persist", says the notice, posted to the EPA's website Friday. "EPA is not aware of any deliberate actions to release chemical or biological agents into the atmosphere". Theorists have posited that the chemicals are meant to control the climate, harm humans, or kill them. The fact sheet from the EPA and other federal agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was first published in 2000 when the chemtrails conspiracy became popular on the Web. An EPA spokeswoman said the agency frequently receives questions about chemtrails. <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/235632-epa-confronts-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/" target="_blank">https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/235632-epa-confronts-chemtrails-conspiracy-theory/</a> <a href="#fnref:256" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:257"><p>Smith, Oliver (24 September 2013). "'Chemtrails' and other aviation conspiracy theories". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 11 December 2016. So persistent is the chemtrail theory that US government agencies regularly receive calls from irate citizens demanding an explanation...The conspiracy theory took root in the Nineties, with the publication of a US Air Force research paper about weather modification ... Governments and scientific institutions have of course dismissed the theories, and claim those vapor trails which persist for longer than usual or disperse to cover a wide area, are just normal contrails. <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Chemtrails-and-other-aviation-conspiracy-theories/" target="_blank">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/Chemtrails-and-other-aviation-conspiracy-theories/</a> <a href="#fnref:257" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>