Abstract
This article considers the application of the precautionary principle as understood in EU law to EU decision-making on geoengineering, in particular solar geoengineering. It finds that the situation is riddled with more complexities than first appears; (i) the principle is used to argue against research, even though more research is usually itself seen as precautionary response; (ii) the risks of research are claimed to lie in its political impact, whereas the principle is traditionally applied to direct physical risks; (iii) while there are legitimate precautionary arguments against geoengineering, it is itself put forward as a precautionary measure and there are precautionary arguments in favour too. Drawing on case law and scholarship we conclude that the precautionary principle can nevertheless be applied and will lead to a procedural requirement to do comprehensive reviews of relevant scientific knowledge before decision-making. This leaves wide – but not unbounded – discretion but may still be valuable in providing a frame for reasoned public debate. We also apply our findings to the recent expert reports on Solar Radiation Modification and show that they have failed to apply precaution correctly.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Number of pages | 12 |
Journal | European Journal of Risk Regulation |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 14 Mar 2025 |
Funding
Funding for this research was received from a Horizon project on conditions for responsible research into Solar Radiation Modification, Co-CREATE (co-create-project.eu), Horizon funding No. GAP-101137642 and UKRI No. 10094614. A grant for preparatory research for the Horizon project and this article was also received from the International Centre for Future Generations (cfg.eu).
Keywords
- Geoengineering
- Precautionary Principle
- climate change
- climate law
- eu law
- SRM