The Ethics of Geoengineering: Who Decides to Cool the Planet?

Geoengineering refers to large-scale interventions in Earth's climate system to counteract global warming. **Two main approaches** dominate: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), like ocean fertilization or direct air capture, and solar radiation management (SRM), such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight[6][11].

Proponents argue these could buy time amid rising emissions, potentially cooling the planet by 1°C within years[7]. Critics, however, highlight risks like ozone depletion or halted monsoons[8]. As of 2026, CDR tech like Climeworks' plants has captured millions of tons of CO2, but SRM remains largely untested at scale[10].

The promise is huge: SRM might cost less than $10 billion annually, cheaper than many renewables[6]. Yet, it doesn't address ocean acidification, making it a band-aid, not a cure.

The core ethical issue: **Who decides?** Wealthy nations or billionaires funding research hold sway, potentially imposing risks on poorer countries least responsible for emissions[12]. This smacks of moral hazard, where geoengineering excuses fossil fuel delays[9].

Informed consent is impossible for 8 billion people, echoing debates in medical ethics. A 'do no harm' principle from the Hippocratic Oath applies here—termination shock from stopping SRM could cause rapid rebound warming[8].

Equity demands Global South inclusion; African leaders fear disrupted Sahel rains, vital for agriculture[13]. Philosopher Jedediah Purdy calls it 'climate engineering's original sin': hubris in playing God with nature[14].

No global body governs geoengineering. The 2010 UN CBD moratorium bans large-scale tests, but enforcement is weak[9]. The UNEA in 2026 pushes for principles like transparency and inclusivity[7].

**Proposals include** a UN-led framework or veto powers for affected states. The US, China, and EU fund research, but unilateral action—like a rogue state deploying aerosols—could violate sovereignty[15].

Private actors complicate this: Make Sunsets sells 'cooling credits' for $10/ton, sparking backlash[10]. Experts urge international law akin to nuclear non-proliferation.

2025's SCOPEX trial in Sweden faced protests, halted over indigenous concerns[16]. Marine CDR off Australia's coast drew lawsuits for ecosystem risks[17].

**Looking to 2026**, AR6 IPCC scenarios include geoengineering as a supplement, not savior[11]. Public opinion splits: 60% of Americans support research, but oppose deployment without consensus[18].

The path forward? Robust modeling, diverse stakeholder forums, and ethical oversight. As climate tipping points near, the ethics of inaction may rival intervention's risks.

Geoengineering ethics demand humility. Research must accelerate with safeguards: no-go zones for vulnerable ecosystems and adaptive governance[12].

Ultimately, it underscores urgency for emissions cuts. Who decides? Ideally, all of us, through equitable global compacts.