Solar Geoengineering: The Global South’s Stake in a High-Stakes Debate

The Global South needs neither a climate laboratory nor a knowledge vacuum

(Image created with DALL.E 3)

I’ll admit it—I wasn’t planning to dive into the solar geoengineering debate. I have been watching it from a safe distance, as someone outside the geoengineering research, advocacy, or policy arenas. But after spending time with African climate researchers in Cape Town earlier this year, watching them model the potential impacts of solar geoengineering on local weather patterns alongside other climate impacts, I realized there’s an urgent need to amplify voices from the Global South in this polarizing conversation.

For those new to the topic, solar geoengineering refers to interventions like injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere to bounce sunlight away from Earth. Some argue it could buy us time in the fight against climate change. Others quite rightfully warn it’s a Pandora’s box of risks—environmental, ethical, and geopolitical—and also a distraction from the real urgent work of reducing emissions. Either way, the debate is heating up, with the U.S., Europe and the U.K. beginning to map out formal research agendas. But where does the Global South, often on the frontline of climate impacts, fit into this conversation? That’s the question I explore in my latest piece for Science Magazine.

The debate around solar geoengineering often gets reduced to a simplistic North vs. South narrative: rich nations wielding control over a "global thermostat" while poor nations bear the risks. I get why this framing is compelling. The Global South has legitimate concerns about being turned into a "laboratory" for untested climate interventions. These arguments came to a head at the United Nations Environment Assembly earlier this year, where African nations opposed a Swiss-led resolution to form an expert panel on the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering. Instead, they called for a ban, accusing proponents of trying to “use Africa to justify the use of this dangerous technology.”

I strongly support a moratorium on solar geoengineering deployment and large-scale field experiments—we need clear boundaries around this technology. But when legitimate concerns about deployment evolve into wholesale opposition to even studying these interventions, I worry. This is especially concerning for Global South countries, who have the most to lose by navigating potential climate futures in the dark. Opting out of research doesn't prevent others from developing these technologies—it just means having less say in understanding their impacts and shaping critical decisions that could affect vulnerable regions most.

Here’s the short version of my argument: the Global South deserves neither to be a passive laboratory for geoengineering experiments nor to exist in a knowledge vacuum. Instead, we need meaningful agency to shape the research and policies that will affect our futures. To accomplish this, we need to start by:

1. Rethinking Simplistic Power Dynamics
   Let’s move beyond the tired “rich nations control the global thermostat” framing. True, rich countries wield outsize influence over the Earth’s climate owing to their disproportionate emissions and their economic and geopolitical power. But climate vulnerability isn't just about control, it's about adaptive capacity. Both climate change and potential solar geoengineering would likely produce uneven impacts within and across nations. Spain's recent devastating floods remind us that even wealthy nations aren't immune. Mitigating climate change by cutting emissions, for which wealthy countries bear the primary responsibility, remains the top priority—yet this alone cannot reverse the climate disruptions already entrenched in the Earth system. This is precisely why we need research that builds a granular, inclusive understanding of all possible climate futures.

2. Investing in Independent Local Expertise
   Let's be real about the power dynamics in solar geoengineering research and policy here—Western institutions dominate the field and often control the purse strings, with Global South researchers having to work through Northern gatekeepers who come with their own agendas. That's a problem. But here's the thing—boycotting research entirely isn't the answer. It would actually give Global South nations even less influence over decisions that will deeply affect their futures. Yes, much of the scientific work in Africa and other Global South regions is funded by Western organizations—that's just the reality across many fields, from climate to medical research. Instead of dismissing this reality, let's push for something better: funding models that give Global South researchers true intellectual independence. Let them set their own research priorities and tackle the questions most relevant to their regions, ensuring funding empowers rather co-opts or sidelines local researchers.

3. Acknowledging the Gap Between Research and Deployment
   And finally, let's bust a common myth: studying solar geoengineering doesn't mean we're on an inevitable path to using it. But there are real risks to not studying it at all. Research doesn't lead directly to deployment—instead, it becomes a public resource that different groups, from local governments to civil society, will use in various ways. The knowledge we gain about climate systems and intervention options has value regardless of whether we ever deploy these technologies. Sure, like any knowledge, it could be misused. That's exactly why we need diverse voices—especially from those most affected by climate change—helping to build this understanding. Even if we can't control exactly how this knowledge will be used in the future, building it inclusively creates a stronger foundation for whatever climate decisions lie ahead.

The discourse around solar geoengineering can feel as polarized as a Twitter war, but it doesn’t have to be. The stakes are too high to walk away from understanding these interventions, especially for regions like Africa that stand to be disproportionately affected by both climate change and potential geoengineering efforts. The Global South needs neither a climate laboratory nor a knowledge vacuum. It needs resources and agency to help shape understanding of all potential climate futures.