In a stark warning, prominent climate policy figures have labelled efforts to ban research into geoengineering technologies a 'catastrophic mistake'. They argue that with the planet already dangerously overheated, refusing to explore every potential tool to mitigate the crisis constitutes a profound moral failure.
The Dangerous Push to Criminalise Climate Research
The debate was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year when Marjorie Taylor Greene, then a US representative, held a congressional hearing on a bill to outlaw 'geoengineering' research. This encompasses technological interventions like using reflective particles to bounce sunlight away from Earth.
While Greene's stance represented an unusual Republican concern for planetary health, experts note it dangerously sidestepped the core dilemma: after centuries of accidental geoengineering via fossil fuel emissions, should we now deliberately study interventions to cool the planet and buy time for the clean energy transition?
Opposition comes from both political flanks. On the right, conspiracy theorists peddling 'chemtrail' myths align with anti-vaxxers to push for bans. On the left, some fear that even acknowledging such tools creates a 'moral hazard', distracting from essential emissions cuts.
Why a Research Ban is Reckless
Craig Segall, former deputy of the California Air Resources Board, and Baroness Bryony Worthington, a life peer and former Shadow Energy Minister, outline two inconvenient truths that make research bans untenable.
First, the climate system is proving more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously hoped. Second, global efforts to cut those emissions remain woefully insufficient. 'The conviction that mitigation will be sufficient – on its own, and in time – is no longer tenable,' they state.
They emphasise that we have already geoengineered the planet—just chaotically and destructively. Through greenhouse gas emissions, we've disrupted Earth's energy balance, triggered dangerous feedback loops like ice loss, and pushed key systems toward collapse. James Hansen, a pre-eminent climate scientist, warns the likelihood of a drastically hotter Earth is accelerating.
A Call for Honest Planning and Responsible Exploration
The authors, with decades of combined experience in climate policy, stress that cutting emissions remains the only long-term solution. However, they argue for a broader, more honest strategy that integrates accelerated mitigation with adaptation, resilience, and the careful exploration of potential interventions.
Ideas like reflecting sunlight with atmospheric particles or brightening marine clouds are considered temporary measures that could reduce peak warming or slow feedback loops. The call is not for immediate deployment, but for rigorous research to understand which options, if any, could be safe and effective.
'A serious research program is how the world gains real choices,' they write. 'To shut down inquiry is to close off the path to knowledge we need to separate the reckless from the responsible.' The alternative is making panicked decisions during future crises without preparation.
They conclude that climate justice demands protecting people from suffering, which requires a plan using every available tool. Refusing to consider potentially life-saving options is not moral clarity—it's moral failure. The window to shape this research safely, justly, and inclusively is still open, but it is closing fast.
