Geoengineering in Climate Policy: A Technological Hope or a Global Threat?

In recent years, geoengineering, defined as deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system to mitigate climate change, has moved to the forefront of both scientific and political debate. In the era of an accelerating climate crisis and increasingly inadequate progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, geoengineering is more and more frequently viewed as a potential backup plan, a last resort if conventional mitigation efforts continue to fall short. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) classifies geoengineering into two main categories: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), which focuses on extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere, and Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which seeks to reflect a portion of the sun’s rays back into space to cool the Earth.

Although these technologies remain largely theoretical or experimental, they are being progressively explored. Despite substantial technical uncertainties, several nations have begun to integrate geoengineering into their national climate strategies through targeted research and pilot initiatives. This growing attention prompts critical questions: What is the role of geoengineering in global climate policy? Could it serve as a technological breakthrough to stabilize climate systems, or does it represent a high-risk tool with unpredictable consequences and potential security implications?

FROM MILITARY USE TO PEACEFUL CLIMATE CONTROL

Geoengineering has a contentious historical background. During the Vietnam War (1955–1975), the U.S. military deployed cloud seeding under Operation Popeye to prolong the monsoon season, thereby impeding enemy logistics. This ethically questionable practice contributed to the adoption of the 1978 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD). While ENMOD prohibits hostile environmental manipulation, it lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and does not sufficiently address the dual-use nature of geoengineering technologies, leaving room for unintended or covert environmental consequences. The dual-use dilemma is particularly relevant today, as modern climate technologies can easily blur the line between civilian and military applications. For example, advanced satellite systems used to monitor atmospheric particles could simultaneously serve as platforms for geoengineering deployment and strategic military observation. As tensions rise among global powers over resource access and regional climate instability, the possibility of geoengineering being used as a geopolitical tool or even a weapon cannot be dismissed. This highlights the urgent need for international trust-building mechanisms and norms to prevent the weaponization of climate technologies.

There is no surprise that contemporary geoengineering efforts are concentrated in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate risks. According to the 2023 report by the XDI Institute, the 50 most climate-exposed regions include industrial, commercial, and residential hubs primarily located in East and Southeast Asia, Oceania, North America, and eastern Latin America. Notably, more than half of these regions (26) are situated in China, including economically critical areas such as Jiangsu and Shandong provinces and the city of Shanghai. Given China’s position as the largest global emitter of CO₂, this climate vulnerability is not surprising. According to the World Bank, a global temperature rise of 1.5 °C by 2040 could lead to an upsurge in heat-related illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and premature mortality.  Special attention should be paid to the North China Plain—a region that could become completely uninhabitable if „wet-bulb“ temperatures exceeding 35 °C occur more frequently, potentially triggering mass migration waves.

China is aware of the seriousness of this challenge and has responded with a climate plan that is generally acceptable to the international community. Its goal is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 through the development of a modern energy system based on clean energy sources, massive tree-planting initiatives, and improved energy efficiency. However, the scientific community is concerned that similar plans by China and other major emitters (such as India or EU member states) may not become effective quickly enough. That’s why many of these countries are leaning toward another possible, though highly controversial, tool: geoengineering. Controversial because even within the UN, there are warnings that while a state may act with good intentions—such as ensuring food security—its interventions could unintentionally cause ecological or economic harm to other countries. Let’s now take a closer look at real-world examples and the dilemmas associated with them.

TRANSBOUNDARY RISKS

Geoengineering initiatives differ significantly in effectiveness and risk. Some historical projects have succeeded without triggering substantial transboundary concerns. A notable example occurred in 2008, when the Summer Olympic Games were held in Beijing. At the time, public and expert concern focused on the impact of local smog, which contributes annually to the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of residents, on the health and performance of athletes. In response, China took several measures to address this risk. A few days before the Games began, private vehicle traffic was significantly restricted. In addition, geoengineers were deployed with two goals: 1) to trigger controlled rainfall to cleanse the air and 2) to secure dry weather during the opening ceremony. This was one of the rare cases of a successful geoengineering intervention. However, it remains more the exception than the rule.

On the other end of the spectrum lies the controversial Sky River Project, which has sparked concerns among neighboring countries. Its aim is to prevent a water crisis in western China by extracting water not only from surface sources but also from the atmosphere, in order to increase local rainfall. On the surface, this may seem like an effective tool for combating drought. However, the problem lies in the method of cloud seeding, which involves releasing chemical substances—such as silver iodide—into the atmosphere. Silver iodide is toxic to freshwater organisms, and its use could have harmful effects on river ecosystems. This is especially alarming for rivers that originate in the targeted area and are crucial for the livelihoods of millions of people in other countries. So rivers such as the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawaddy, Salween, and Mekong. The high-risk nature of this project is highlighted by the ongoing debate within the scientific community about the effectiveness of cloud seeding. While some studies suggest it can increase the likelihood of rain or snow by up to 15 %, others claim there is no measurable impact at all.

The threat of uneven geographical distribution of the impacts of geoengineering interventions is already becoming real. Accusations have emerged globally. There are cases of countries accusing others of worsening their climate conditions. For instance, Iran has repeatedly accused Israel of stealing its rainfall and contributing to prolonged droughts, and China blamed the devastating 2023 wildfires in Maui on alleged malfunctions of American „weather weapons“. All of this raises pressing questions about global justice, accountability, and the potential for international conflict. For these reasons, experts are calling for caution, transparent public discourse, and strict international regulation of geoengineering activities.

ABSENCE OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

As outlined above, certain state practices aimed at coordinating the positive environmental impacts of national activities are, to some extent, addressed by existing international frameworks. Most notably the ENMOD convention and selected national climate strategies. However, these instruments only partially relate to geoengineering, and their scope remains limited when considering the technological complexity and global scale of current developments. A few international treaties address geoengineering-related practices, though only in a limited way.

For instance, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer sets out fundamental rules on systematic observation, conducting research, information exchange, and the harmonization of relevant policies to protect the ozone layer. It wasn’t until the later addition of the Montreal Protocol that specific measures became binding for the countries that acceded to it. The protocol primarily seeks to phase out the production and use of substances responsible for ozone layer depletion, representing one of the most successful examples of international environmental cooperation to date. There is also the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which establishes the obligation of states to protect and preserve the marine environment. Similarly, the London Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) impose restrictions on activities such as ocean fertilization, which involves introducing nutrients into the ocean to stimulate carbon dioxide absorption by phytoplankton. These frameworks, while not explicitly designed with geoengineering in mind, set important precedents for regulating interventions in the Earth’s systems.

Despite the existence of these agreements, a fundamental issue persists: current international regulations are inadequate and outdated, as they do not reflect recent technological developments nor the complexity of contemporary geoengineering activities. While many ongoing projects aim to mitigate the effects of climate change and enhance environmental or human security, their implementation is often guided by national interests, strategic objectives, and economic considerations. As a result, it becomes increasingly difficult to assess the cumulative global impact of these activities or to predict their long-term ecological consequences. Moreover, there is currently no single international authority explicitly tasked with overseeing the ethical, environmental, and geopolitical dimensions of geoengineering. Scientific research in this area is frequently conducted in disciplinary or national silos, with minimal transparency or coordination between institutions. This fragmented approach raises significant concerns about governance, accountability, and risk assessment. In light of these challenges, the creation of an independent, science-based global oversight body is urgently needed. Ideally under the auspices of the United Nations or a specialized agency.

According to a publicly accessible interactive global map on geoengineering prepared by the ETC Group and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, geoengineering is not limited to any particular region — experiments are taking place on every continent. The highest concentration of geoengineering projects is found in the United States, where efforts primarily focus on carbon dioxide removal. Western Europe hosts a variety of initiatives as well, while the United Kingdom has conducted experiments aimed at, for example, strengthening Arctic sea ice. In Australia, the emphasis lies in protecting coral reefs, often through techniques like cloud brightening, which enhances the reflection of solar radiation. In China and across much of Southeast and East Asia, cloud seeding is widely regarded as a viable method for managing rainfall. Some projects can also be found in regions such as the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. Eastern Europe and Russia together account for nearly ten projects, whereas Central Asia currently lacks any active initiatives.

ETHICAL CHALLENGES AND SYSTEMATIC RISKS

Let us not forget that the problem humanity is striving to solve today has deep roots in human activities that disrupt the natural balance of stable ecosystems on our planet. These activities (whether intensive fossil fuel combustion, extensive deforestation of tropical and temperate regions, or industrial-scale agriculture) have contributed to global climate change. Proponents of geoengineering argue that, at a time when international agreements are failing and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, geoengineering could serve at least as a partial safeguard against the worst-case scenarios. However, the question remains: what impact could the development of these technologies have on current climate policies and, above all, on society’s willingness to make fundamental systemic changes in the future?

Some experts, such as Adam Corner and Nick Pidgeon, warn of the potential risks involved in relying on technological solutions. They fear that geoengineering might be perceived as a so-called “technological excuse”—a way to diminish the political and public will to reduce emissions, transform the economy, and reduce our dependence on carbon-intensive activities. In other words, a moral hazard thus emerges: geoengineering may provide short-term relief while delaying necessary systemic change.

Beyond the practical, a normative dilemma arises a question: Who is entitled to make decisions regarding interventions that affect the global climate? This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many proposed technologies could have unpredictable side effects that, as mentioned above, would impact different parts of the world unevenly. One of the most discussed approaches to solar geoengineering is the dispersal of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect a portion of solar radiation back into space. Although this method could lead to temporary cooling of the planet, there are serious concerns that it might also damage the ozone layer. This could have not only ecological consequences, such as disrupting photosynthesis in plants and threatening food chains, but also severe health effects, such as an increased incidence of skin cancer.

From the perspective of environmental ethics, the statement of Professor Dan Scott is often recalled: “Since geoengineering is a technological fix for energy technologies, what will be the technological fix for geoengineering, and so on? Where does it stop?” This idea summarizes the fear that instead of truly addressing the root causes of the climate crisis (namely overconsumption, unsustainable economic growth and environmental irresponsibility), humanity might embark on a path of endless technological patches that temporarily alleviate the crisis but do not solve its cause.

GEOENGINEERING’S FUTURE: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Geoengineering, while technologically promising, presents significant political, ethical, and environmental complexities. This means that although the technology offers amazing possibilities, its application also creates many challenging issues that go beyond the purely technical realm and include moral dilemmas and impacts on nature. It should not be seen as a silver bullet, but rather as a double-edged sword—one that must be wielded with caution, transparency, and deep respect for the planet’s natural systems and the global commons we all share.

Ensuring responsible and equitable deployment requires the creation of a binding multilateral agreement which defines clear rules, limits, and responsibilities for the research, testing, and potential use of geoengineering technologies. Such a framework should include mandatory environmental impact assessments, transparent reporting standards, and a global monitoring system to prevent unilateral action. Equally important is the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders (particularly vulnerable states, small island nations, and indigenous communities) in decision-making processes. Geoengineering should remain a measure of last resort. In other words, used only in cases of climate emergency and strictly within an integrated policy framework that prioritizes mitigation, adaptation, and long-term resilience. It must never become a justification for delaying systemic transformation or avoiding ambitious emissions reductions.

 

Sources:

Bo Li (2021). How China Plans to Achieve Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality. Earth.org. September 9, 2021 (https://earth.org/china-carbon-peak-carbon-neutrality/, accessed June 14, 2025).

Cigas, Sarah (2021). Ethics of Geoengineering. Viterbi Conversations in Ethics (https://vce.usc.edu/volume-5-issue-1/ethics-of-geoengineering/, accessed June 22, 2025).

Corner, Adam – Pidgeon, Nick (2014). Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and the ‚moral hazard‘ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions. National Library of Medicine (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4240956/, accessed June 20, 2025).

Dube, Clayton (2008). Air Quality at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. USC US-China Institute. August 21, 2008 (https://china.usc.edu/air-quality-2008-beijing-olympics, accessed June 14, 2025).

ETC Group – Heinrich Boell Foundation (n.d.). Geoengineering map (https://map.geoengineeringmonitor.org/, accessed June 20, 2025).

EUR-Lex (n.d.). Montrealský protokol o látkách, které poškozují ozonovou vrstvu (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/CS/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:4413653, accessed June 21, 2025).

Farand, Chloé – Darby, Megan (2020). China will aim for carbon neutrality by 2060, Xi Jinping says. Euractiv. September 23, 2020 (https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/china-will-aim-for-carbon-neutrality-by-2060-xi-jinping-says/, accessed November 11, 2024).

Global Security (n. d.). Operation Popeye (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/popeye.htm, accessed March 14, 2025).

China-Europe Carbon Neutrality (n.d.). Carbon neutrality in China (https://chinaeucn.com/carbon-neutrality-china/, accessed June 16, 2025).

IPPC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter10.pdf, accessed June 12, 2025).

Jayaram Dhanasree (2019). China’s geoengineering build-up poses geopolitical and security risks. Climate Diplomacy. December 5, 2019 (https://climate-diplomacy.org/magazine/cooperation/chinas-geoengineering-build-poses-geopolitical-and-security-risks, accessed June 15, 2025).

Karas, Pavel – Karlík, Tomáš (2021). Nárůst vlhké teploty může vyhnat z domovů desítky milionů lidí, vytvoří neobyvatelná místa. ČT24. July 10, 2021 (https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/clanek/veda/narust-vlhke-teploty-muze-vyhnat-z-domovu-desitky-milionu-lidi-vytvori-neobyvatelna-mista-32090, accessed June 14, 2024).

O’Callaghan, Jonathan (2025). Controversial geoengineering projects to test Earth-cooling tech funded UK agency. Nature. May 7, 2025 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01389-1, accessed June 21, 2025).

Pitavy, Marin (2022). Geoengineering: an incomplete solution to a poorly formulated problem. SciencesPo, July 11, 2022 (https://www.sciencespo.fr/psia/chair-sustainable-development/2022/07/11/geoengineering-an-incomplete-solution-to-a-poorly-formulated-problem/, accessed June 12, 225).

Scott, Dane (2012). Geoengineering and Environmental Ethics. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10).

Sheperd, J.G. – Working Group on Geoengineering the Climate (2009). Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty (https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/156647/, accessed June 15, 2025).

Sikorsky, Erin – Ellison, Tom (2024). Geoengineering and Climate Change in an Age of Disinformation and Strategic Competition. Council on Strategic Risks. April 23, 2024 (https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2024/04/23/geoengineering-and-climate-change-in-an-age-of-disinformation-and-strategic-competition/, accessed June 18, 2025).

Thomson, Jess (2022). China Has Started Geoengineering Rain Over Extreme Heat and Drought. Newsweek. August 24, 2022 (https://www.newsweek.com/china-cloud-seeding-rain-combat-drought-geoengineering-1736523, accessed June 17, 2025).

UNODA (n. d.). Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (https://treaties.unoda.org/t/enmod/participants, accessed June 15, 2025).

Wang, Guangqian – Wie, Jiahua – Huang, Yuefei – Fu, Xudong – Zhong, Deyu (2017). The Sky River Project. In: Hydrolink 2017/4 (https://henry.baw.de/server/api/core/bitstreams/a01e5e16-fb25-4155-a778-99245374f7e9/content, accessed June 16, 2025).

XDI (Cross Dependency Initiative) (2024). 2024 XDI Gross Domestic Climate Risk Report (https://77af07411.flowpaper.com/2024XDIGlobalDomesticClimateRiskReport/#page=12, accessed June 10, 2025).

Zizhu, Zhang (2020). Has „geoengineering“ arrived in China? Dialogue Earth. November 9, 2020 (https://dialogue.earth/en/climate/how-to-supervise-geoengineering/, accessed June 16, 2025).

Source of the picture: https://paleofuture.com/blog/2011/12/5/weather-control-as-a-cold-war-weapon

 

Written by Michaela Konopásková

843