Nearly Every Nation on Earth Agreed to a Moratorium on Geoengineering in 2010
It seems that most people are unaware of the fact that on October 29, 2010, the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a de facto moratorium on geoengineering.
Over the past 15+ years many people have pointed to visible white trails of Jet Engine Exhaust Pollution and have falsely claimed that they were “chemtrails” that were associated with “geoengineering.”
Have any of them ever told you that an international moratorium on “geoengineering” has been in place since October 29, 2010 and that it has been reaffirmed several times?
Have any of them told you that the United States is one of very few countries that is NOT a party to that international agreement?
Donald Trump has never publicly spoken the word “geoengineering”,
nor has he ever spoken about the “Convention on Biological Diversity.”
WHY NOT?
Were you aware of the fact that the international agreement that is detailed below placed a moratorium on “geoengineering” over 15 years ago?
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to a de facto moratorium on geoengineering on October 29, 2010.
The decision was adopted by consensus during the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) in Nagoya, Japan, prohibiting most climate-related geoengineering activities.
The Convention on Biological Diversity adopted decision X/33(w), which prevents climate-related geoengineering activities. The move was made to prevent potential "significant adverse impacts on biodiversity" from large-scale technological interventions, such as solar radiation management.
This decision is often regarded as a major step forward by environmental organizations and researchers concerned with the risks associated with manipulating the climate system.
As of 2024–2026, there are 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. This includes 195 nations and the European Union, representing near-universal participation in the international treaty.
The Convention on Biological Diversity agreed to a moratorium on geoengineering in 2010
The Scope: It broadly covers large-scale interventions in Earth systems, including solar radiation management (like stratospheric aerosol injection) and carbon dioxide removal.
Reaffirmation: The CBD has repeatedly reaffirmed this precautionary moratorium, including at the
The United States is a notable non-party, having signed but NOT ratified the treaty.
Only a few United Nations member states, including the United States, Andorra, South Sudan, and the Holy See (the Vatican), are NOT parties to the agreement.
When the Convention on Biological Diversity first agreed to the moratorium in 2010, the U.S. government openly criticized the decision. Officials argued that stifling scientific research at an early stage was the wrong approach, emphasizing the need to understand all available tools to combat climate change.
Early Congressional reports on geoengineering recommended federal investment in scientific studies rather than bans. More recently, the U.S. has actively pursued federally funded research into Solar Radiation Modification and atmospheric interventions.
The U.S. has maintained its stance in broader UN forums. In 2024, the U.S. effectively blocked broader international resolutions at the United Nations Environment Assembly that were designed to initiate stricter global governance or a non-use agreement for solar geoengineering. ARTICLE #1 ARTICLE #2
The Trump administration has NOT signed an executive order specifically regarding geoengineering. No Presidential directives on the subject have been issued.
The agreement placing a moratorium on “geoengineering” was reached in 2010 and has been reaffirmed several times:
October 29, 2010 (COP 10)
The Conference of the Parties,
Paragraph 8 (w)
Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities76 that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;
https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop?id=12299
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-33-en.pdf
The term “geoengineering” was defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s agreement on October 29, 2010:
76 Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. It is noted that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.
https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop?id=12299
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-33-en.pdf
An additional discussion of the definition of the term “geoengineering” can be found on pages 131-134:
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf#page=131
December 5, 2012 (COP 11)
The Convention on Biological Diversity reaffirmed their earlier decision.
The Conference of the Parties
1. Reaffirms paragraph 8, including its subparagraph (w), of decision X/33;
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-20-en.pdf
October 2016
For those who want to research this topic in great depth, the document below has a very large list of reference materials.
https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf
December 8, 2016 (COP 13)
The Convention on Biological Diversity reaffirmed their earlier decisions.
The Conference of the Parties
1. Reaffirms paragraph 8, in particular its subparagraph (w), of decision X/33, and decision XI/20;
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-14-en.pdf
November 1, 2024 (COP 16)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) pioneered intergovernmental discussion on climate geoengineering by taking several precautionary decisions beginning in 2008, with the CBD ultimately establishing a de facto moratorium on deployment [On October 29, 2010]
In a notable example of foresight and precaution, the CBD took a series of groundbreaking decisions addressing geoengineering and its potential impacts on biodiversity and people, beginning in 2008. To underpin its decisions, the CBD produced peer-reviewed, technical reports on ocean fertilization and on geoengineering’s potential impacts on biodiversity as well as on related regulatory matters.
By consensus of all Parties and based on the precautionary approach, COP 10, decision X/33 paragraph 8 (w) called on Parties to “Ensure (...) that no climate-related geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place” until a set of conditions is met, including: having in place a transparent multilateral global governance mechanism; establishing that no transboundary harm would occur; and having an adequate scientific basis to justify the geoengineering actions, taking into account the risks posed to biodiversity and considering related social and cultural impacts. The decision made an exception for small-scale scientific research studies in controlled settings for the purposes of gathering scientific data and only after a thorough assessment of potential impacts on the environment. None of the conditions detailed in the CBD decisions on climate-related geoengineering have been met. Given the growing number of risky marine and solar geoengineering proposals and attempted/ongoing field experiments – many incentivized by geoengineering’s perceived potential role in carbon trading – the CBD’s call for precaution is particularly timely and crucial. Geoengineering threatens land, marine and coastal biodiversity, the environment, and the rights, territories and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
The UN’s Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that deployment of geoengineering technologies could impact the human rights of “millions or perhaps billions of people” and that the lives and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, peasants and fisherfolk are at particular risk.
Finally, if certain geoengineering techniques are deployed and then stopped – whether intentionally or by accident or due to geopolitical conflict – the interruption could trigger a so-called ‘termination shock’ effect – i.e. a dramatic increase in temperatures and an accelerated rate of climate change that would make it difficult for many species and ecosystems to adapt.
More than 500 scientists from 61 countries have supported a call demanding an “International Non-Use Solar Geoengineering Agreement”, stating:
“Solar geoengineering deployment at planetary scale cannot be fairly and effectively governed in the current system of international institutions. It also poses an unacceptable risk if ever implemented as part of future climate policy. A strong political message from governments, the United Nations and civil society is urgently needed.”
Many governments already agree: The 19th meeting of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) also called for a solar geoengineering nonuse governance mechanism, while the EU Parliament passed a resolution in December 2023 calling for such a mechanism. Negotiations at UNEA 6 in February this year on a resolution on SRM also risked undermining decisions of the CBD on geoengineering, however this was met with strong resistance particularly from Global South countries who called for the resolution to uphold precaution and acknowledge calls for a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement.
In response to Make Sunsets’ rogue deployment, Mexico announced, in January 2023, it would not permit solar geoengineering experiments within its national territory. Mexico provided a model of swift government action to prevent a country from being exploited as an unwitting laboratory.
It is time to take action before ecosystems are irreversibly harmed.
https://etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/cop_16_briefing-en-final_rev.pdf
The Convention on Biological Diversity reaffirmed their earlier decisions yet again.
The Conference of the Parties,
6. Reaffirms decision IX/16 C on ocean fertilization, paragraph 8 (w) of decision X/33 on biodiversity and climate change and decisions XI/20 and XIII/14 of 9 December 2016 on climate related geoengineering, and urges Parties, and encourages other Governments, to ensure their implementation;
https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-22-en.pdf
January 13, 2023
Experimentation with solar geoengineering will not be permitted in Mexico
Semarnat and Conacyt will carry out actions in accordance with the precautionary principle to protect communities and environmental settings.
Studies demonstrate negative impacts from the release of these aerosols, which cause meterorolical imbalances.
There is an international moratorium that remains in place against the deployment of geoengineering.
To prohibit and, where appropriate, halt solar geoengineering experimentation practices in the country, the Government of Mexico, through inter-institutional coordination between the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) and the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt), will carry out actions adhering to the precautionary principle to protect communities and environmental settings.
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, of which Mexico is a party, established a moratorium in 2010 that remains in force against the deployment of geoengineering.
The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) will implement a strategy to prohibit these practices within the national territory, reinforcing the initial global guidelines. Under the precautionary principle and the framework established in the Montreal Protocol, which promotes the protection of the ozone layer and the fight against climate change, any large-scale solar geoengineering practices will be halted within its territory. These practices, while purported to be large-scale technologies, are still under development.
The Government of Mexico reiterates its unwavering commitment to the protection and well-being of the population against practices that generate risks to human and environmental security, working in a coordinated, rigorous and responsible manner for the well-being of the people of Mexico.
The use of Solar Radiation Management technologies is also related to the following international agreements:
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD or the Convention).113
ENMOD opened for signature in May 1977 and entered into force on October 5, 1978. The United States became a party to ENMOD in 1979. ENMOD’s aim is to prohibit the military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques which have widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any party.
The Convention defines the term “environmental modification techniques” as any technique for changing—through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition, or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, or outer space.114
This definition may encompass certain geoengineering activities.
However, the Convention further states that the provisions of the Convention do not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes, such that parties to the Convention may undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.115
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP or the Convention).116
CLRTAP opened for signature in 1979 and entered into force on March 16, 1983. The United States became a party to the Convention in 1979. Contracting parties commit themselves to limiting, and to gradually preventing and reducing their discharges of air pollutants and thus to combating the resulting transboundary pollution.
Long-range transboundary air pollution is defined by the Convention as the human introduction of substances or energy into the air which have deleterious effects on human health, the environment, or material property in another country, and for which the contribution of individual emission sources or groups of sources cannot be distinguished.117
It is uncertain which geoengineering activities CLRTAP would regulate, or how such regulation would be implemented.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (the Convention).118
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was opened for signature in 1985 and entered into force in 1988. The Convention, along with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete Ozone Layer, which was opened for signature in 1987 and entered into force in 1989, aims to control the production and consumption of the most commercially and environmentally significant ozone-depleting substances.119
The United States became a party to the Vienna Convention in 1986. It is also a party to the Montreal Protocol (since 1988) and has agreed to all four amendments to the Protocol.
Parties to these agreements, within their capabilities, are expected to
(1) cooperate to better understand and assess the effects of human activities on the ozone layer and the effects of the modification of the ozone layer;
(2) adopt appropriate measures and cooperate in harmonizing appropriate policies to control the activities that are causing the modification of the ozone layer;
(3) cooperate in formulating measures for the implementation of the Convention; and
(4) cooperate with competent international bodies to implement the Convention.120
Certain stratospheric aerosol injection technologies for geoengineering, to the extent that they pose a risk to the ozone layer, have the potential to implicate many of the phase-out provisions of the Convention and the protocols.
ARTICLES
November 8, 2010
The treaty partners reached an agreement providing that “no climate-related geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts.”
“Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking,” said Pat Roy Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, an international activist organization that opposes geoengineering.
The U.S. is not a party to the 1992 accord and thus was not officially involved in the geoengineering decision.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i45/Countries-Agree-Ban-Geoengineering.html
November 10, 2010
The decision carries considerable political clout.
The 193 State Parties of the CBD [at the time] are unanimously urging themselves and the world’s three UN members who are not Parties to the Convention to invoke the precautionary approach and prohibit geoengineering activities at least until a number of conditions are met: The prohibition applies
as long as there is no “science based, global, effective, transparent control and regulatory mechanism”;
in keeping with the precautionary approach and the obligations of Article 14 of the Convention;
until there is an adequate scientific basis to justify geoengineering and
appropriate consideration of risks to the environment, biodiversity as well as social, economic and cultural impacts.
Much of the geoengineering research currently underway (computer modeling, for example) would be allowed under this exception but virtually no open field trials of geoengineering technologies could meet all 4 conditions.
On the international stage, the United States has consistently advocated against restrictions on geoengineering:
March 7, 2024
Countries failed to agree first steps on solar geoengineering at the UN. What went wrong?
Back in 2019, at the last face-to-face Assembly, the Swiss proposed a resolution to assess the science and possible governance of ‘climate altering techniques’ aka geoengineering. That came to naught in the face of persistent opposition from the US and Saudi Arabia.
The US also objected to efforts from Bolivia and the EU to stress a precautionary approach.
March 8, 2024
The global conversation about solar geoengineering just changed at the UN Environment Assembly. Here’s how.
In 2024 the US argued something remarkably similar. This time the preferred venue for any information collation or assessment was the recently announced scientific ‘lighthouse’ process of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP).
https://legal-planet.org/2024/03/08/the-global-conversation-about-solar-geoengineering-just-changed/
October 15, 2024
Why Geoengineering is a False Solution to the Climate Crisis
Geoengineering has been restricted by a de facto moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity since 2010. The development and deployment of geoengineering technologies are also potentially inconsistent with a wide range of legal obligations and principles under international law.
https://www.ciel.org/why-geoengineering-is-a-false-solution-to-the-climate-crisis/
March 5, 2025
Geoengineering Governance: Restrictive Framework Must Be Upheld and Strengthened
Geoengineering — the large-scale manipulation of Earth’s climate — is often framed as an unregulated new frontier, where a lack of rules leaves the door open to dangerous experimentation. But this is simply not true. Across international law, human rights frameworks, and United Nations environmental agreements, a strong foundation for geoengineering governance already exists — and it is highly restrictive.
Existing restrictive governance that prevents geoengineering development and deployment must be upheld and enforced in the immediate term. Looking forward, this precautionary framework must be the basis for developing any additional agreements and rules and ultimately build up to a global ban or nonuse agreement.
Existing International Agreements Already Restrict Geoengineering
The CBD reaffirmed its longstanding moratorium in 2024
One of the most robust restrictions on geoengineering comes from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Recognizing the grave and potentially irreversible harm geoengineering could cause to biodiversity, the CBD had the foresight to address geoengineering as early as 2008 with a decision that put in place an effective moratorium on ocean fertilization and was quickly followed by a wider decision for a de facto moratorium on all geoengineering in 2010.
The decision is clear: no geoengineering activities should be allowed unless there is robust scientific justification and appropriate consideration of the environmental risks and broader social impacts. Countries have repeatedly reaffirmed the moratorium. In 2016, the CBD first reaffirmed its longstanding moratorium and again in 2024 at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the CBD due to concerns over the proliferation of outdoor experiments — particularly in the marine environment. Furthermore, over 100 organizations supported a statement calling on States to prevent such geoengineering experiments.
The precautionary principle states that where there is scientific uncertainty, actions that could cause severe or irreversible harm should not be taken. This approach is highly applicable in the context of geoengineering technologies because they are unprecedented., These technologies can never be fully tested other than via large-scale deployment — with the many novel risks this would generate.
The obligation not to cause transboundary harm is highly relevant in relation to geoengineering and, again, is referenced in related decisions of the CBD.
Geoengineering runs counter to a wide range of human rights obligations, including:
The right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment
The right to life, food, water, and health
Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
The rights of future generations
A 2023 Human Rights Council Advisory Committee report warned that “because [geoengineering approaches] are meant to be applied on a global scale, they have the potential to affect everyone indiscriminately,” which could adversely impact the human rights of “millions or perhaps billions of people.”
Meanwhile, the Maastricht Principles on the Rights of Future Generations, a comprehensive framework for understanding how international law applies to the human rights of future generations, highlights geoengineering as one of a number of areas that “pose[s] a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk to the human rights of future generations.”
Taken together, international agreements, international customary law, and human rights law create a broad range of principles, norms, and obligations squarely applicable to geoengineering, all of which are restrictive and precautionary.
Momentum is growing to build on and strengthen the existing governance framework towards Non-Use. More than 500 leading academics from over 50 countries are calling for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering, on the basis that such an undertaking would be impossible to ever fairly and effectively govern. A non-use agreement would reject deployment, outdoor experiments, and patenting and stop taxpayer funds from supporting the development of solar geoengineering technologies.
Political support for Non-Use is increasing, with the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment and the European Parliament calling for a non-use mechanism, along with support in the Pacific Islands, led by Vanuatu and Fiji. Germany has also expressed its willingness for dialogue on a non-use agreement, while the EU backed the Africa Group’s position during the controversial negotiations on solar radiation management resolution at the sixth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly earlier this year. Nearly 2000 civil society organizations also endorse a non-use agreement.
Building on this momentum, governments should:
Implement and enforce the CBD’s de facto moratorium on geoengineering at the national and regional levels and uphold decisions of the CBD on geoengineering in other international fora.
Support the development of strong precautionary regulatory controls under the LC/LP.
Ban all outdoor field geoengineering experiments.
Withhold public support — including funding — and stop granting patent rights for geoengineering technologies.
Work toward a solar geoengineering non-use agreement.
The United States
October 2010
After holding a series of hearings on governance of this type of research, Representative Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the outgoing chairman of the House Science & Technology Committee, issued a report on geoengineering research on October 29, 2010 - the same day that the U.N. meeting in Japan agreed to the geoengineering ban.
The report argues that climate engineering may become necessary to study, but it carries profound risks and must be approached cautiously, transparently, and under strong international governance.
Geoengineering affects the entire planet
Actions by one country could harm others
Risk of unilateral deployment
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
August 16, 2010 – November 26, 2013
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy
The CBD opened for signature in June 1992 and entered into force in December 1993. The United States has signed but has not become a party to the CBD. The key principle of the CBD is that countries have both the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own domestic policies and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their control do not cause damage to the environment of other states or to areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.97
In October 2010, the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD adopted provisions calling for the parties to abstain from geoengineering—including “any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolution or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity”—unless the parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those activities on biodiversity.98
The COP also affirmed its earlier decision, IX/16C, which acknowledged the work of the London Convention and the London Protocol regarding ocean fertilization and requested that its own Parties ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until either there is adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities or the activities are small-scale scientific research studies within coastal waters.99
In October 2010, the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD adopted provisions calling for the parties to abstain from geoengineering—including “any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolution or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity”—unless the parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those activities on biodiversity. The COP also affirmed its earlier decision, IX/16C, which acknowledged the work of the London Convention and the London Protocol regarding ocean fertilization and requested that its own Parties ensure that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until either there is adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities or the activities are small-scale scientific research studies within coastal waters.
In addition to the international climate change agreements, the following international agreements may be relevant to the use of CDR technologies.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
UNCLOS opened for signature in December 1982 and entered into force on November 16, 1994. Despite participating in the UNCLOS negotiations, the United States declined to sign the final agreement and has not become a party since then, although it views many provisions of UNCLOS as customary international law that it was already obligated to follow. UNCLOS establishes a legal regime governing activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans and defines countries’ jurisdictions over, and rights of access to, the oceans and their resources. Article 194 of the UNCLOS imposes a duty on its parties to take, individually or jointly, measures that are necessary to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from any source. The UNCLOS defines pollution as any human-driven introduction of substances or energy into the marine environment that results or is likely to result in deleterious effects such as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine activities, or impairment of sea water quality. This provision could have significance for a geoengineering project that pollutes the marine environment, by land, sea, or air. In addition to, arguably, mandating that a country not engage in that activity, once a geoengineering project resulted in the pollution of the ocean environment, Article 194 would impose a duty on the member country responsible for that pollution to control and limit its spread. Article 192 of the UNCLOS imposes a general obligation on countries to protect and preserve the marine environment. These provisions could be implicated by ocean fertilization and some other geoengineering activities if they have a negative effect on the marine ecosystem. Large-scale ocean fertilization projects could also implicate several UNCLOS provisions, including Article 56, and 238 through 241 on marine scientific research.
London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention), and London Protocol.
The London Convention was opened for signature in December 1972 and entered into force in August 1975. The London Protocol was agreed to in 1996 as a means of modernizing and eventually replacing the London Convention. The United States became a party to the London Convention in 1974, but it has not become a party to the London Protocol. Contracting parties pledge to take all possible steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of substances that are liable to create hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine life, or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea. However, ocean fertilization and other geoengineering projects that entail the deliberate disposal of substances into the sea might not implicate the London Convention’s prohibitions on dumping if they are deemed placed into the sea “for a purpose other than the mere disposal thereof, if not contrary to the aim of the Convention.” Nevertheless, the parties have recently considered amendments and resolutions to these agreements to address some geoengineering technologies more explicitly. For example, the 2006 amendments to the London Protocol provide guidance on the means by which sub-seabed geological sequestration of carbon dioxide can be conducted, stating that carbon dioxide streams may only be considered for dumping if (1) disposal is into a sub-seabed geological formation; (2) the substances dumped consist overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide; and (3) no other wastes or matter were added to them for the purpose of disposing of them. Two years later, in 2008, the parties adopted Resolution LC-LP.1, agreeing that ocean fertilization research activities do not to constitute dumping under the London Convention and Protocol.
Finally, in addition to the climate change agreements, the use of SRM technologies may implicate the following international agreements:
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD or the Convention). ENMOD opened for signature in May 1977 and entered into force on October 5, 1978. The United States became a party to ENMOD in 1979. ENMOD’s aim is to prohibit the military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques which have widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any party. The Convention defines the term “environmental modification techniques” as any technique for changing—through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes—the dynamics, composition, or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, or outer space. This definition may encompass certain geoengineering activities. However, the Convention further states that the provisions of the Convention do not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes, such that parties to the Convention may undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes.
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP or the Convention).
CLRTAP opened for signature in 1979 and entered into force on March 16, 1983. The United States became a party to the Convention in 1979. Contracting parties commit themselves to limiting, and to gradually preventing and reducing their discharges of air pollutants and thus to combating the resulting transboundary pollution. Long-range transboundary air pollution is defined by the Convention as the human introduction of substances or energy into the air which have deleterious effects on human health, the environment, or material property in another country, and for which the contribution of individual emission sources or groups of sources cannot be distinguished. It is uncertain which geoengineering activities CLRTAP would regulate, or how such regulation would be implemented.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (the Convention).
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer was opened for signature in 1985 and entered into force in 1988. The Convention, along with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete Ozone Layer, which was opened for signature in 1987 and entered into force in 1989, aims to control the production and consumption of the most commercially and environmentally significant ozone-depleting substances. The United States became a party to the Vienna Convention in 1986. It is also a party to the Montreal Protocol (since 1988) and has agreed to all four amendments to the Protocol. Parties to these agreements, within their capabilities, are expected to
(1) cooperate to better understand and assess the effects of human activities on the ozone layer and the effects of the modification of the ozone layer;
(2) adopt appropriate measures and cooperate in harmonizing appropriate policies to control the activities that are causing the modification of the ozone layer;
(3) cooperate in formulating measures for the implementation of the Convention; and
(4) cooperate with competent international bodies to implement the Convention.
Certain stratospheric aerosol injection technologies for geoengineering, to the extent that they pose a risk to the ozone layer, have the potential to implicate many of the phase-out provisions of the Convention and the protocols.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20131126_R41371_adc67c4303a34f2162b48ad69e14980550d7a948.pdf
June 2023
April 3, 2026
The EPA
https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering
https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering/about-geoengineering
What does the U.S. government do regarding research and tracking of solar geoengineering?
Congress has not passed any law solely related to solar geoengineering, though several statutes are relevant. For example, under the authority of the Weather Modification Reporting Act (WMRA) of 1972, all persons intending to engage in weather modification activities in the United States are required to provide a report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at least 10 days prior to undertaking the activity.
Under Part 908.3 of Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, reporting requirements for weather modification encompass solar geoengineering activities “modifying the solar radiation exchange of the earth or clouds, through the release of gases, dusts, liquids, or aerosols into the atmosphere.”
While NOAA does not regulate weather modification activities, it does track them through WMRA reporting requirements.
A public database of NOAA weather modification reports can be viewed here: Weather Modification Project Reports
To date, NOAA is the only federal agency that has received funding explicitly to study SRM.
Since 2020, NOAA’s ERB Program has initiated various research activities on solar geoengineering, such as atmospheric modeling, stratospheric observations, and laboratory activities to understand the physical impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB).
Has large-scale solar geoengineering deployment already happened?
No. The U.S. government is not engaged in any form of outdoor solar geoengineering testing (e.g., small-scale experiments designed to study injection technologies) or large-scale deployment (e.g., intentional use of SRM to cool the Earth).
Solar geoengineering is not occurring via direct delivery by commercial aircraft and is not associated with aviation contrails.
As of July 2025, EPA is aware of only one private sector actor, Make Sunsets, that has actively deployed SAI or MCB in the United States. While there are a few private actors focused on developing different solar geoengineering technologies, the amount of material that has been intentionally released into the atmosphere to date is very small relative to natural events like volcanic eruptions.
UPDATE 8/20/2025 -- EPA has been made aware that a canceled University of Washington-led solar geoengineering experiment in Northern California may have been the precursor to a larger-scale experiment that was not previously disclosed to the public.
UW’s Marine Cloud Brightening Program, in collaboration with two nonprofits called SilverLining and SRI International, planned for a small-scale solar geoengineering experiment to begin in April 2024 that involved spraying saltwater aerosols off the deck of the retired USS Hornet aircraft carrier. A second phase of the experiment would have looked to increase the density and reflectiveness of clouds.
However, the UW experiment only lasted 20 minutes before Alameda city officials shut it down. The city council voted in June 2024 to block the experiment from restarting, in part, over the researchers’ lack of transparency. Indeed, Alameda’s mayor said she first hear about the experiment in media reports.
However, documents revealed in recent news reports suggest this canceled experiment was the precursor to an even larger and riskier solar geoengineering experiment involving a 3,900 square mile area off the west coasts of North America, Chile or southern Africa to study salt-water-spraying technology that could eventually be scaled up and used to block incoming sunlight.
UW’s 2023 research plan noted that “[a]t such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space.”
In 2021, the university received funding from NOAA and the U.S. Department of Energy for modeling studies. UW reportedly hoped to gain more federal funding, and even access to U.S. government ships and planes, to conduct their major geoengineering experiment.
https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering/frequent-questions#deployment
The EPA is aware of multiple international agreements that may be relevant to solar geoengineering research and possible deployment.
The Convention on Biological Diversity issued a moratorium in 2010 (decision X/33), which was reaffirmed in 2024 (decision XI/20) on deployment of geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity.
In 2023, the Scientific Groups of the London Convention and London Protocol issued a statement that recognized the “potential for deleterious effects” of emerging solar radiation modification techniques. Learn about about marine geoengineering and the London Convention and London Protocol.
Parties to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer have expressed concern over solar geoengineering and are tracking relevant research. A 2022 report (pdf) (35.9 MB) by the World Meteorological Organization discussed the potential effects of solar geoengineering on stratospheric ozone; the Montreal Protocol’s Scientific Assessment Panel provides regular updates on geoengineering techniques for consideration by the parties.
A panel of scientific advisors to the European Union published policy recommendations in December 2024, including an “EU-wide moratorium on the use of SRM” and a call for research on the “full range of direct and indirect effects and unintended impacts of SRM”.
https://www.epa.gov/geoengineering/frequent-questions#deployment
A GOOD PLACE AND TIME TO STAGE A DEMONSTRATION!
The 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will be held in Yerevan, Armenia, from October 19–30, 2026.
https://www.cbd.int/meetings/COP-17
I strongly suggest that We The People should put our energy behind demanding that the United States Senate vote to give its advise and consent to the President to officially approve that the United States adopt the Convention on Biological Diversity, adhere to the moratorium regarding the implementation of any form of geoengineering and clearly state that we will utilize our military power to stop any attempt by any nation, corporation or organization to block the sun.
Click HERE and HERE for additional information on this and related topics.
If you would like to have a respectful discussion regarding this issue and help work on possible solutions, then please feel free to contact me directly anytime at 310-619-3055 (phone, text, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp) or James.Roguski@gmail.com
Watch the interview:
Review the data:
ProjectInHumanity.com
If you would like to have a respectful discussion regarding this issue and help work on possible solutions, then please feel free to contact me directly anytime at 310-619-3055 (phone, text, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp) or James.Roguski@gmail.com
My Story
James Roguski
310-619-3055
JamesRoguski.substack.com/archive
All support is deeply appreciated.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE
It's gotten to the point where eating fruits and vegetables is iffy, the shit they're spraying on the planet is so deadly that you have to push it out of your mind just to eat. Humans, animals and the land are being decimated, no one in power cares to stop it. I know for a fact God is our only hope, that and our self reliance.
Look...when you're trying to murder 7 BILLION people, every little bit helps. But WTF do I know?