At UNEA 7, Dr. Mfoniso-Antia Chris Xael of Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) reflects on debates around Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and why reframing the Solar Geoengineering Non Use Agreement is not the way to go.

As the global environmental community convened for OECPR-7 and UNEA-7 in 2025, debates around Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) quietly migrated from academic seminar rooms to the periphery of major multilateral discussions. While SRM did not emerge in formal UNEA-7 resolutions this year, civil society discourse and side events revealed a worrying shift in how some influential actors are framing the technology, not as a global risk requiring prohibition but as a topic suitable for managed inclusion.

This narrative shift was most apparent in a side event hosted by The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering (DSG). On the surface, DSG’s mission to enable “just and inclusive deliberation” on solar geoengineering, by building governance capacity and engaging climate-vulnerable communities, may seem compatible with civil society goals of equity and justice. But a closer look reveals how the language of “inclusion” and “deliberation” can progressively soften resistance to SRM and steer discussions away from more fundamental political demands, such as a Solar Radiation Non-Use Agreement.

Founded in 2023, DSG presents itself as outcome-neutral, explicitly not taking a position for or against future SRM deployment but advocating for early, inclusive governance and democratic decision-making on research and potential use. In practice, this looks like engaging stakeholders across regions, including youth, in discussions on SRM research; hosting workshops to “prepare” communities and policymakers; and fostering networks of early-career professionals in its Climate Intervention Network.

There is no dispute that governance capacity building is important. Yet when “inclusive deliberation” becomes the dominant frame, legitimate demands for non-use and prohibition, founded on justice, risk, and coloniality critiques, risk being sidelined. International calls for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering, supported by hundreds of scientists and governance scholars, argue precisely that SRM, in the absence of globally binding, equity-based governance, should not be normalized or experimented with at any scale. These initiatives stress that SRM research and deployment pose risks that are poorly understood and inherently global in impact, incompatible with incremental or technocratic governance pathways.

The issue is not inclusion per se, civil society and climate-vulnerable nations must indeed be heard. But inclusion without clear thresholds and red lines can easily morph into acquiescence. A governance process that prioritizes deliberation without outcome commitments may inadvertently validate incremental research agendas that erode the political ground for non-use and banishment of SRM from climate policy.

This concern deepened at another side event during the same week; a youth-focused panel hosted under the auspices of SilverLining, a U.S.–based organization that actively promotes “climate interventions”, including solar reflection strategies, as a component of near-term climate risk management. SilverLining’s agenda, rooted in the idea that society needs robust options to reduce warming beyond mitigation and adaptation, fundamentally frames SRM methods and related science, as necessary tools for climate resilience.

There is nothing inherently wrong with engaging youth in climate dialogues. However, the manner in which this SilverLining panel was structured, effectively introducing young people to “climate interventions” without clear linkage to geoengineering’s controversial implications, masked the core subject matter. In this side event, young panelists appeared unaware they were participating in discussions deeply tied to geoengineering research and framing. This raises ethical questions about transparency and informed participation, particularly when the technology discussed carries global implications on climate, weather patterns, food systems, and sovereignty.

It is particularly striking that organizations like SilverLining are increasingly funded to advance research agendas and partnerships that normalize solar radiation strategies within climate dialogues, including through youth networks. It has received significant philanthropic backing explicitly to expand Global Young Leaders Initiatives and youth engagement on climate intervention issues – which is often a euphemism for technical geoengineering topics. Offering youth a platform without equipping them with critical context or contested framings of the technology risks co-optation rather than empowerment.

This is not a rejection of youth engagement or science literacy. Rather, it is a call to safeguard youth platforms from becoming vehicles for technocratic optimism that distract from justice-based climate action. SRM is not a neutral scientific topic; it is a deeply political intervention with uneven impacts and power asymmetries. Masking it in neutral vocabulary like “climate interventions” while omitting clear debate on non-use and prohibition undermines informed agency.

The fundamental question remains: whose interests are served by changing the nomenclature from geoengineering to climate intervention? When organizations conflate inclusive dialogue with neutral framing of SRM, or when youth engagement obscures controversy, the momentum shifts away from bold political demands, such as an International Non-Use Agreement toward dialogue on how to govern, when to research, and under what conditions to consider deployment.

This is a dangerous slide. For communities already facing climate injustice, especially in Africa, where rainfall disruptions, food insecurity, and water scarcity already threaten livelihoods, SRM is not a climate policy option. It is a techno-political experiment with unknown consequences and established geopolitical risks. As civil society at OECPR-7 insisted, it is not a climate solution and must be taken off the table.

Inclusion and deliberation must not become euphemisms for normalization. They must support, not displace, the fundamental political demand that SRM should not advance without consent, justice, and equitable power structures – and ideally not at all. As the UN prepares for UNEA-8, the climate justice community must reclaim the narrative, ensuring that words like governance and inclusion do not replace binding commitments to prevention, non-use, and the rights of the most affected.