EU Scream Ep. 118: Putting Guardrails On Playing God

Date: July 16, 2025
Host: James Kanter
Guest: Cynthia Scharf, Center for Future Generations

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode delves into the controversial field of solar geoengineering, notably the concept of dimming the sun to combat climate change. With Europe suffering deadly heat waves and climate goals drifting out of reach, host James Kanter discusses with Cynthia Scharf—former UN climate aide and current member of the Brussels-based Center for Future Generations—whether it’s time to seriously consider and regulate these "technologies of desperation." The conversation unpacks scientific, moral, political, and global governance questions, and makes the case for EU leadership and public engagement in shaping the guardrails around such powerful technologies.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The State of Climate Change and Tech “Desperation”

• Opening Context:
  Europe’s latest heatwave killed over 2,300 people—over half from human-induced climate change.

  • “What if temperatures can be lowered using technology?... Many Europeans reject geoengineering outright. They say nobody should be playing God with the climate.” (James Kanter, 00:02)

• The climate trajectory is now for nearly 3°C warming, far above the 1.5°C Paris target.

• Solar geoengineering (with methods like creating a “parasol” of particles in the atmosphere) could offer rapid cooling, but comes with huge unknowns and risks.

2. What Is Solar Geoengineering?

• SRM (Solar Radiation Modification):

  • A fleet of jets would disperse sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, causing rapid global cooling.
  • Could, in theory, reduce heat quickly, buying time, but “it does not address the cause of climate change, which is excess CO2... All it does is mask one of the symptoms, excess heat.” (Cynthia Scharf, 11:22)

• Compared to cloud seeding (short-term, regional), SRM is global, long-term, and potentially risky.

3. Moral, Religious, and Governance Dimensions

• Perception of “Playing God”

  • Religious and ethical discussions—12 faith traditions were consulted for a report “Playing God.”
    • “It is a heavy load to carry in terms of thinking through the implications of either using this technology or not using it.” (Cynthia Scharf, 04:39)
  • Vatican engagement demonstrates moral weight of the issue.

• Governance Vacuum:

  • Currently, geoengineering’s R&D is outpacing regulation—venture capital and private actors moving in.
  • International guardrails, transparency, and public funding of research are lacking.

4. Risks, Questions, and Potential Conflict

• Unilateral Use and Geopolitical Risks:

  • Nations or regions might deploy SRM in their own interest, causing unequal effects globally and conflict.
  • “How do you equitably decide whose finger is on the global thermostat?” (Cynthia Scharf, 12:10)
  • Literature like “Ministry for the Future” (Kim Stanley Robinson) envisions tipping points and unilateral deployment (10:15-11:22).

• Potential Triggers for Conflict:

  • Social media rumors; regional tests could spark “geopolitical mayhem.”
  • Scientific attribution of harm would take years; accusations and panic could escalate instantly.

5. Private Sector and Startup Activity

• Companies like Stardust and Make Sunsets (the latter famously did DIY balloon experiments) are moving ahead due to the lack of prohibitive regulation.

  • “The media attention was enormous... what we have right now is a situation where the research is going to move ahead quickly and yet the governance is basically non existent.” (Cynthia Scharf, 17:04)

• Intellectual property holds the potential for concentrated power and misuse, though actual global-scale deployment is currently technically out of reach for individuals or single companies.

6. International Law and the Search for Guardrails

• Current treaties (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal Protocol) are piecemeal and lack binding provisions.

  • “There is no one size fits all to govern the research, potential outdoor testing and potential deployment of this technology.” (Cynthia Scharf, 18:43)

• States are far likelier than private actors to deploy at scale, given material and logistical requirements.

7. Termination Shock (“Climate Boomerang”)

• If the sun-dimming effort is abruptly stopped after years, rapid temperature rebounds could devastate biodiversity and ecosystems.
  • “That would be devastating for biodiversity... that’s simply way too much shock to the system.” (Cynthia Scharf, 23:14)

8. The EU’s Position and Cynthia’s Call for Public Research

• While the European Commission’s scientific advisors urge a cautious approach, recommending bans on deployment and worry about moral hazard, Cynthia argues public research is essential to avoid “flying blind.”

  • “Even if we, the European Union, never intend to deploy it, we need to know what happens if someone else does.” (Cynthia Scharf, 25:59)

• Without public funding and transparency, private, foreign, or unilateral actors will set the agenda.

• She advocates for an international public registry of research and funding and calls for transparent monitoring systems—especially to detect unsanctioned experiments (26:56).

9. The Research Slippery Slope and Calls for Moratorium

• The “slippery slope”: More research might make deployment inevitable; moral hazard is real (27:33).

• The Paris Agreement succeeded by setting voluntary rather than binding commitments. A legally binding “non-use” or moratorium is likely unworkable; instead, Cynthia suggests bottom-up international norms, involving civil society and even faith leaders (29:40).

• “No deployment right now is the stance we should have.” (Cynthia Scharf, 30:19)

10. Risks in a Warming, Unstable World

• As the climate becomes more hostile, public and political support for desperate solutions may surge.
  • “The world is only going to know hotter climates this century. Even if all emissions go to zero tomorrow, there is still heat baked into the system.” (Cynthia Scharf, 31:52)
• Must weigh geoengineering’s potential harms not against today’s world, but against a much hotter, less stable future.

11. The Role and Interests of the Global South

• The narrative that the Global South unanimously opposes geoengineering is inaccurate.
  • “They're actually looking at this technology and saying, hmm, this is potentially interesting. Why? Because they don't see a positive outcome right now...” (Cynthia Scharf, 39:07)
• Some vulnerable countries demand their own scientists, not just those from the Global North, have a say in research and risk assessment.
  • Disparities in research support exist: US funding is much higher (>$100 million) than the EU (~€7 million since 2015).

12. Indigenous, Local Resistance and Public Perception

• Indigenous opposition, such as in Sweden with the Sami against Harvard’s SCoPEx project, shows consent and engagement failures.
  • Perception—often enraged by lack of consultation or by conspiracies—can trump scientific realities, shaping policy and public opinion.

13. Oppenheimer Parallel: The Weight of New Global Tools

• Just as Oppenheimer and fellow nuclear scientists wrestled with the responsibility of atomic power, geoengineering raises profound questions about international control and the human role in planetary stewardship.
  • “I’m hoping that we as a species can be wise enough to realize how much we don’t know...” (Cynthia Scharf, 46:16)

14. Who Should Lead? The European Union’s Opportunity

• The US and China are either disengaged or too secretive; the EU, Cynthia argues, is best placed to champion transparency and international cooperation:
  • Building public registries,
  • Developing monitoring systems for the stratosphere,
  • Funding accountable research.
  • "Europeans have a real opportunity to walk the talk about the importance of transparency, of scientifically backed evidence based governance..." (Cynthia Scharf, 49:59)
• She suggests the monetary cost may be minor; the signal matters more than the sum.

15. The Taboo Around Geoengineering and the Dangers of Silence

• For years, policymakers and scientists avoided the topic, fearing it would detract from emissions cuts.
• The absence of open debate has fueled conspiracy theories (e.g., “chemtrails”), especially amid general erosion of trust in institutions.
  • Up to 25% of Americans believe such conspiracies. (56:06)
  • Cynthia warns, "…the fact that it's been taboo has actually made the likelihood of conspiracy theorists or misinformation disinformation all the more likely." (55:19)

16. Europe’s Responsibility and Political Fragility

• The US, for now, is retreating from science-based policy. Europe risks following, with right-wing, anti-science currents rising and environmental policies at risk.
  • “The EU is kind of the last great hope... we are up against hard limits environmentally.” (Cynthia Scharf, 58:50)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “How do you equitably decide whose finger is on the global thermostat?”
  (Cynthia Scharf, 12:10)

• “It does not address the cause of climate change, which is excess CO2... All it does is mask one of the symptoms, excess heat.”
  (Cynthia Scharf, 11:22)

• "The only way to solve the cause is to get emissions to zero, then go net negative, pulling out the excess amount of CO2..."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 13:17)

• "You could cause a real provocation by doing a large outdoor test. But Elon Musk or others are not going to be able to change the global climate themselves."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 20:08)

• "At best, it's a supplement that could buy some time... but it also has the potential to trigger a conflict."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 13:54)

• "Imagine... temperatures dropped by a degree and now they're shooting right back up... That's simply way too much shock to the system."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 23:14)

• “Even if we, the European Union, never intend to deploy it, we need to know what happens if someone else does. So we need to have that research. We need to have it responsibly governed."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 25:59)

• "They're actually looking at this technology and saying, hmm, this is potentially interesting. Why? Because they don't see a positive outcome right now..."
  (Cynthia Scharf, 39:07)

• “The EU is kind of the last great hope. What I fear is... not only [from] the politics and the economics, but also the environmental constraint that we’re now coming up against.”
  (Cynthia Scharf, 58:50)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:02] – Framing the challenge: Deadly heat waves, science-fiction-esque technology, "Playing God"
• [04:39] – Cynthia on the moral burden and “Playing God” report
• [07:44] – Technical SRM explanation: fleets of jets, sulfate aerosols
• [11:22] – Modeling, global thermostat dilemma, and equity concerns
• [13:17] – Only emissions cuts and negative carbon will address root causes
• [15:54] – Risks of social conflict, misinformation from unilateral/small-scale actors
• [16:42] – Private sector activity (Stardust, Make Sunsets), lack of governance
• [23:14] – “Termination shock” and catastrophic temperature rebounds
• [25:59] – EU research funding realities and justification for more public research
• [27:33] – Moral hazard, call for moratorium, and limits of international law
• [31:52] – The need to compare risks with future climate, not present-day conditions
• [39:07] – Emerging interest from some Global South nations
• [42:00] – Disparity in funding: USA vs. EU & supporting Global South scientists
• [43:26] – Indigenous resistance and impact of public perception
• [45:03] – Oppenheimer, global governance, and the weight of scientific responsibility
• [49:59] – Cynthia: Time for the EU to step up as leader, invest in transparency and monitoring
• [55:19] – Dangers of taboo, conspiracy theories thrive in the absence of public debate
• [58:50] – Cynthia: EU is "the last great hope" amid global rightward, anti-science drift

Takeaway

This episode frames solar geoengineering as both a technological lifeline and a potential Pandora’s box. The science is provocative, the governance challenge daunting, and the moral, political, and equity questions profound. Scharf's call for EU leadership in responsible, transparent, publicly funded research is rooted less in advocacy for geoengineering per se than in the conviction that reckoning openly with the risk is less dangerous than leaving it to secretive, unaccountable actors—especially in a climate-constrained, trust-impaired, and rapidly warming world.

For more information on Cynthia Scharf’s work and the Center for Future Generations, visit cfg.eu.