Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is increasingly attracting attention in scientific and policy discussions due to its potential to partially offset anthropogenic climate change. At the same time, SRM raises major governance, ethical, and sustainable development challenges, particularly regarding legitimacy, participation, and unequal institutional capacities between countries. While research and governance discussions continue to expand, actors from the Global North (GN) remain dominant in agenda-setting and decision-making processes, whereas the Global South (GS), despite its disproportionate vulnerability to climate impacts, remains comparatively underrepresented. This article examines SRM governance through the lens of inclusive governance and sustainable development. It argues that governance arrangements lacking transparency, accountability, and equitable participation risk reinforcing existing inequalities in global environmental governance and undermining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Drawing on a qualitative literature review and a case study of the SRM Non-Use Agreement, the article analyzes the evolution of SRM debates and the structural factors shaping participation in governance discussions. Recent institutional assessments, including the United Nations Environment (UNEP) Program Solar Radiation Modification Working Paper further highlight major governance gaps, scientific uncertainty, and asymmetries in research capacity between developed and developing countries. The analysis explores governance mechanisms capable of strengthening transparency, participation, and ethical safeguards in emerging SRM governance frameworks. Beyond documenting existing governance gaps, this article makes three contributions. First, it combines a structured literature review with an empirical analysis of the SRM Non-Use Agreement to examine participation asymmetries. Second, it identifies the institutional factors that continue to constrain meaningful Global South participation in emerging SRM governance debates. Third, it proposes governance mechanisms that translate principles of inclusive governance and sustainable development into operational pathways for future SRM governance.

1.         United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Solar radiation modification: Scientific evidence does not support SRM as a viable climate solution. UNEP; 2026.

2.         Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2023: AR6 Synthesis Report. IPCC; 2023.

3.         McLaren D, Corry O. The politics and governance of research into solar geoengineering. WIREs Climate Change. 2021; 12(3): e707. doi: 10.1002/wcc.707

4.         SRM360. Trump’s withdrawal from climate organisations: What it could mean for solar radiation management governance. SRM360; 2026.

5.         Reynolds J, Ghosh A, Harihar N, Prayank J. Solar radiation modification: Governance gaps and challenges. Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G); 2022.

6.         Camilloni I. If geoengineering is ever deployed in a climate emergency, transparency is key. The Guardian; 2026.

7.         Talberg A, Christoff P, Thomas S, Karoly D. Geoengineering governance‑by‑default: An Earth System Governance perspective. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2018; 18(2): 229‑253. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9374-9

8.         Jinnah S, Dove Z. Solar radiation management: A history of the governance and political milestones. Environmental Science Atmospheres. 2025; 5(6): 656‑673. doi: 10.1039/D5EA00008D

9.         Biermann F, Oomen J, Gupta A, et al. Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non‑use agreement. WIREs Climate Change. 2022; 13(2): e754. doi: 10.1002/wcc.754

10.      Kowalski AM. Global south–global north differences. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: No Poverty. Springer; 2020. pp. 1‑12. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-69625-6_68-1

11.      Okereke C. Climate justice and the international regime. WIREs Climate Change. 2010; 1(3): 462‑474. doi:10.1002/wcc.52

12.      Ciplet D, Roberts JT, Khan M. Power in a warming world: The new global politics of climate change and the remaking of environmental inequality. MIT Press; 2015. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262029612.001.0001

13.      Jinnah S, Nicholson S, Morrow D, et al. Governing climate engineering: A proposal for immediate governance of solar radiation management. Sustainability. 2019; 11(14): 3954. doi: 10.3390/su11143954

14.      National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. National Academies Press; 2021. doi:10.17226/25762

15.      Gasparini B, McGraw Z, Storelvmo T, Lohmann U. To what extent can cirrus cloud seeding counteract global warming? Environmental Research Letters. 2020; 15(5). doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab71a3

16.      Tully C, Neubauer D, Omanovic N, Lohmann U. Cirrus cloud thinning using a more physically based ice microphysics scheme in the ECHAM‑HAM general circulation model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2022; 22(17): 11455‑11484. doi: 10.5194/acp-22-11455-2022

17.      Rahman AA, Artaxo P, Asrat A, Parker A. Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research. Nature. 2018; 556(7702): 22‑24. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-03917-8

18.      Okereke C, Coventry P. Climate justice and the international regime: Before, during, and after Paris. WIREs Climate Change. 2016; 7(6): 834‑851. doi:10.1002/wcc.419

19.      anow D, Schwartz‑Shea P. Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn. Routledge; 2014. doi: 10.4324/9781315703275

20.      Jinnah S. Why govern climate engineering? A preliminary framework for demand‑based governance. International Studies Review. 2018; 20(4): 673‑697. doi: 10.1093/isr/viy022

21.      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press; 2022. doi:10.1017/9781009157926

22.      World Meteorological Organization (WMO). State of the Global Climate 2024. WMO; 2025.

23.      National Research Council (NRC). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press; 2015. doi:10.17226/18988

24.      Crutzen PJ. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climate Change. 2006; 77(3): 211‑219. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y

25.      Kravitz B, Robock A, Tilmes S, et al. The geoengineering model intercomparison project phase 6 (GeoMIP6): Simulation design and preliminary results. Geoscientific Model Development. 2015; 8(10): 3379‑3392. doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015

26.      Trenberth KE, Dai A, van der Schrier G, et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nature Climate Change. 2014; 4: 17‑22. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2067

27.      Hamilton C. Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering. Yale University Press; 2013.

28.      McDonald J, McCormack PC, Foerster A. Governing geoengineering research for the Great Barrier Reef. Climate Policy. 2019; 19(7): 801‑811. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1592742

29.      Tollefson J. Can artificially altered clouds save the Great Barrier Reef? Nature. 2021; 596(7873): 476‑478. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-02290-3

30.      Wagner G. Geoengineering: The Gamble. Polity Press; 2021.

31.      Harding A, Ricke K, Heyen D, et al. Climate econometrics models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter‑country income inequality. Nature Communications. 2020; 11: 227. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13957-x

32.      Horton JB, Keith DW. Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. Climate Justice and Geoengineering. Rowman & Littlefield; 2016. pp. 79‑92.

33.      Flegal JA, Gupta A. Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 2017; 18(1): 45‑61. doi: 10.1007/s10784-017-9377-6

34.      Victor DG. On the regulation of geoengineering. Oxford Review Economic Policy. 2008; 24(2): 322‑336. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grn018

35.      Alves F, Schmidt L. Editorial: Climate change and society. Frontiers in Sociology. 2022; 7: 991193. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.991193

36.      Gomes C, Schmidt L. An adaptive governance for water justice in Europe. Socioecos: Climate Change, Sustainability and Socio‑Ecological Practices. Universidad del País Vasco; 2024. pp. 331‑342.

37.      Schmidt L, Alves AF, Valente S, Mourato J. Outlining community perceptions of climate change in local adaptation strategies development: the case of ClimAdaPT. Local. Theory and Practice of Climate Adaptation. Springer; 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72874-2_13

38.      Boykoff M. Creative (climate) communications: Productive pathways for science, policy and society. Cambridge University Press; 2019. doi:10.1017/9781108164047

39.      Botto C, Kamal Mowni A, Marquant L. Solar radiation modification and youth perspectives on its governance. United Nations Sustainable Development; 2023.

40.      Contzen N, Perlaviciute G, Steg L, et al. Public opinion about solar radiation management: A cross‑cultural study. Climate Change. 2024; 177(4). doi: 10.1007/s10584-024-03708-3

41.      Winickoff DE, Flegal JA, Asrat A. Engaging the global south on climate engineering research. Nature Climate Change. 2015; 5(7): 627‑634. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2632

42.      Coal focus damps hopes of China’s climate ambition. Financial Times; 2024.

43.      Tauschinski J, Stylianou N. China’s electrification drive puts it far ahead of the US and EU. Financial Times. 2025.

44.      Singh A, Kolluri S. Climate change governance in India: building the institutional framework. CSEP; 2025.

45.      United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment. UNEP; 2023.

46.      Aldy JE, Felgenhauer T, Pizer WA, et al. Social science research to inform solar geoengineering. Science. 2021; 374(6569): 815‑818. doi: 10.1126/science.abj6517

47.      Global Overshoot Commission. Reducing the risks of climate overshoot. The Report; 2023.

48.      Solar Geoengineering Non‑Use Agreement. Signatories. Pelease; 2022.

49.      Bäckstrand K, Kuyper JW. The democratic legitimacy of orchestration. Environmental Politics. 2017; 26(4): 764‑788. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2017.1323579

50.      The Royal Society, Environmental defense fund, TWAS. Solar radiation management: The governance of research. SRMGI; 2011.

51.      International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). International Governance issues on Climate Engineering information for policymakers. IRGC; 2020.

52.      Observatoire Défense & Climat. Géo‑ingénierie solaire: Enjeux géostratégiques et de défense. Ministère des Armées; 2023.

53.      Parson EA, Keith DW. Solar geoengineering: History, methods, governance, prospects. Annual Reviews Environmental Resources. 2024; 49: 1‑29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-081911

54.      Umweltbundesamt (UBA). Solar Radiation Modification (SRM): Concepts, Risks, and Governance of intervention in the global climate system through solar geoengineering. UBA; 2025.

55.      United Nations Environment Programme & World Meteorological Organization. Consultative Workshop and Science‑Policy Dialogue on Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). Geneva; 2025.

56.      United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Pact for the Future (A/RES/79/1). United Nations; 2024.

57.      Ramos Y, Duarte Santos F. Are climate geoengineering technologies being patented? Climate. 2025; 13(4): 77. doi: 10.3390/cli13040077

58.      Bäckstrand K, Zelli F, Schleifer P. Legitimacy and accountability in polycentric climate governance. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge University Press; 2018. pp. 338‑356. doi: 10.1017/9781108284646.020