The Guardian Editorial: Africa’s Call for Caution on Solar Geoengineering Highlights Risks of This Controversial Climate Technology
As the seventh United Nations Environment Assembly convenes in Nairobi, Kenya, Africa has taken a prominent role in steering the global discourse on climate action. Amid urgent efforts to tackle the escalating climate crisis, African diplomats are raising serious concerns about solar geoengineering—a proposed technology that aims to cool the planet by injecting particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from Earth.
Although solar geoengineering is not formally on the summit’s agenda, African nations are vocally contesting its promotion as a viable solution to global warming. Their opposition centers on the potential environmental, ethical, and geopolitical dangers posed by the technology, along with the risks of using the continent as a testing ground for unproven interventions.
At the heart of Africa’s stance is a push for a global “non-use” agreement—an international agreement that would effectively ban public funding, outdoor experiments, patenting, and official endorsement of solar geoengineering. This call draws parallels with past global prohibitions on transformative and hazardous technologies, such as landmines and chemical weapons, underscoring the massive power geoengineering could confer on certain actors and the grave risks that power entails.
Why Africa Opposes Solar Geoengineering
African nations’ reservations stem from several critical factors. Primarily, solar geoengineering does not address the root cause of climate change: greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it merely aims to mask warming by artificially cooling the planet, leaving the underlying problem untreated.
Moreover, experts warn of potentially severe side effects. Solar geoengineering could disrupt rainfall patterns worldwide, jeopardizing agriculture and food security in vulnerable regions like Africa. There is also the “termination shock” risk—a sudden and dangerous temperature spike if geoengineering efforts are abruptly stopped after deployment.
Such concerns were significant enough for African countries to successfully block a Swiss-backed UN resolution on solar radiation modification during last year’s climate talks.
Growing Industry and Geopolitical Controversy
Despite African opposition, an emerging industry is developing around the idea of controlling Earth’s thermostat. Notably, a US–Israeli company is designing atmospheric spraying systems to provide “cooling services” to governments willing to deploy such technologies. Other countries have also taken steps to restrict geoengineering activities; for instance, Mexico banned solar geoengineering experiments in 2023 following an unauthorized trial by a US startup over its airspace.
In parallel, the UK government has become a prominent funder of research into solar radiation modification. Through its Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK supports scientific efforts investigating geoengineering hardware and small-scale field tests. However, many scientists criticize this move as premature, poorly regulated, and insufficient in establishing the safety of such interventions.
Political and Economic Implications
Solar geoengineering is entangled with geopolitics and energy economics. The United States, the world’s leading oil and gas producer, has under the Trump administration prioritized “American energy dominance” as a core economic strategy. Geoengineering could afford a way to manage climate risks without fundamentally challenging fossil fuel dependence, reinforcing existing power structures.
Control over both energy supplies and the planet’s climate regulation mechanisms would grant extraordinary influence to a handful of nations or corporations, raising profound questions about equity, governance, and accountability.
The Precautionary Principle and Future Directions
Africa’s advocacy for a moratorium on solar geoengineering embodies the precautionary principle—that potentially dangerous technologies should be approached with great care and restraint. Given the magnitude of the risks and the ethical stakes, it argues that this power should not rest with a few actors, but rather be subjected to broad, transparent international oversight or avoided altogether.
This cautious stance does not undermine the urgency of climate action; rather, it refocuses attention on proven and equitable solutions—such as drastically reducing fossil fuel consumption, scaling up renewable energy investments, and financing adaptation measures to address existing climate damages.
As the international community gathers in Nairobi, Africa’s message resonates: managing the climate crisis demands responsibility, global cooperation, and humility about the limits and consequences of high-stakes technology.
Share Your View
The Guardian welcomes readers’ perspectives on the solar geoengineering debate. To submit a response of up to 300 words for consideration in our letters section, please click here.
Topics: Geoengineering, United Nations, Climate crisis, Africa, Solar radiation modification, Environmental policy, Energy politics
