Middle Path Initiative

Join Us
Menu

Middle Path Initiative

We call for an approach to SRM based on inclusive inquiry, restraint, and legitimate future choice. We refer to this as a middle path, one that centers human rights, inclusion, and good governance. Join Us Download White Paper MIDDLE PATH INITIATIVE PRINCIPLES A Middle Path for SRM Governance EXPLORE THE PRINCIPLES Aerial view of mountains in Flumserberg, Flums, Switzerland with trails and lake in the background Sunlight through the trees in a forest

Why SRM is Being Discussed Now

Climate impacts are worsening, and interest in approaches like Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) approaches are intensifying. SRM is a combination of technological strategies that raise profound scientific, ethical, political, legal, and governance questions.

Provides Cooling

Scientific consensus suggests SRM approaches would cool the planet and reduce some climate impacts at scale.

Scale

Depending on the type of SRM, impacts could range from regional to planetary.

Physical Implications

Significant uncertainties remain as to how SRM would impact local ecosystems, weather patterns, hydrology, and public health.

Governance Implications

Raises critical questions regarding governance, ethics, accountability, equity, justice, geopolitics, and security.

Nepal Flood

Why do we need a middle path?

A PATH FORWARD
SRM is a part of the dialogue, and in a world of worsening climate crisis, it is not going away.

This complex topic is locked into a debate that is often highly polarized, which can crowd out constructive and inclusive dialogue. The real question ahead of us is not whether SRM should be deployed or not, but how the conversation will unfold: who is at the table, what research is enabled, whose insights matter, and how the research and/or development of such technologies should be governed in a global reality defined by climate suffering and geopolitical tensions.

Under current conditions of scientific uncertainty, insufficient governance capacity, and limited international legitimacy, SRM should not be deployed. But suppressing inquiry is not an adequate governance response. We believe a middle path is possible: one that expands the table to include a wider array of voices in research and inquiry, sets conditions for restraint, and makes legitimate future choice possible.

We cannot have a legitimate conversation on decision-making around SRM if most of the world is not at the table. Grounded in the perspectives of regions already experiencing severe climate impacts, we articulate a rationale for a middle path approach and identify practical steps that governments, researchers, civil society organizations, and funders can take to support responsible, inclusive, transparent, and accountable SRM governance. We welcome others who share these values to join us in endorsing this approach and working with us to support and strengthen middle-path approaches to SRM research and governance.

Join Us

Join the Middle Path Initiative

How You Can Help

The Middle Path Initiative presents the following white paper as a starting point to catalyze broader civil-society engagement and collaboration on SRM research and governance. We invite others to engage with these ideas and join with us to build a broader constituency to advance middle path approaches.

Download White Paper

Supporting a Pathway for Inquiry, Restraint, and Legitimate Future Choice

Download Now

Join Us

Stand with the Middle Path Initiative

Support the Core Principles

Words from our co-authors

Emerging Climate Frontiers

"I support this initiative because the people who would live with the consequences of SRM decisions are still largely missing from the places where those decisions are being shaped. In Ghana and across Africa, we are already absorbing climate impacts we did little to cause. Holding firm on restraint should never mean shutting us out of the knowledge. We need the capacity to ask our own questions, weigh the evidence ourselves, and help write the rules."
Ernest Ofori headshot
Ernest Ofori Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director

Youth Alliance for Environment

“Those hit hardest by climate change from mountain communities in the Himalayas to vulnerable frontlines must shape the conversation on SRM. I stand with the Middle Path Initiative to ensure local voices guide this future. Responsible research means nothing without climate justice, honest dialogue, and strict safeguards to protect the communities most at risk.”
Sanot Adhikari headshot
Sanot Adhikari Executive Director

Environmental Defense Fund

“I support this initiative because decisions about SRM could have implications across nearly every aspect of public life, from climate, health, and food systems to forests, oceans, and livelihoods. Yet today, too few voices are meaningfully engaged in the conversation. Whether SRM ultimately proves promising or problematic, civil society has a critical role to play in bringing real-world perspectives, surfacing risks and tradeoffs, and helping ensure future decisions are made in the public interest.”
Natasha Vidangos headshot
Natasha Vidangos Associate Vice President, Innovation and Technology Policy

Africa Research and Impact Network (ARIN)

“Working at the intersection of climate and health has taught me that those who bear the greatest consequences of climate decisions are not always those shaping them. For Africa, SRM raises questions not only about planetary cooling, but about whose risks count, whose knowledge informs decisions, and who is accountable for the consequences. I am part of this initiative because uncertainty must never become a justification for exclusion or haste. We need the freedom to ask difficult questions, the discipline to exercise restraint, and the legitimacy to choose our collective future.”
Ann Irungu headshot
Ann Irungu Global Health & Climate-Responsive Implementation Science

Operaatio Arktis

“The decades ahead remain critical. Actions and inactions will bear consequences for generations to come. The world that is fast approaching temperatures once considered dangerous cannot ignore approaches that could bring the temperatures down relatively quickly and cheaply, not because we would necessarily want to do so, but because someone else might. Agendas are usually not set by the people who remain absent from the tables where decisions are made, but by those who have the capacity and will to engage and steer the discussions. SRM is not science fiction but a real emerging topic that is becoming increasingly hard to ignore in a burning world. At the same time, we have to make sure that any proposed ideas do not cause more harm than they aim to prevent. That’s why I support this Initiative, which places its emphasis on inquiry and restraint.”
Justus Lehtisaari headshot
Justus Lehtisaari Head of International Cooperation

Healthy Climate Initiative

“Recent climate disasters across the Himalayas and other vulnerable regions have left me deeply concerned for my family, community, and the Eastern Himalaya, where unmitigated warming threatens a dire future. As a climate justice advocate, I believe frontline communities’ lives, livelihoods, and biocultural heritage must be protected from a crisis they did not create. Technological interventions may be an option, but communities must understand the research, risks, and implications of SRM and other approaches. This initiative reflects civil society’s concerns while allowing responsible scientific inquiry and innovation for the long-term welfare of all communities.”
Rituraj Phukan headshot
Rituraj Phukan Director, Healthy Climate Initiative & Chairman, Indigenous People's Climate Justice Forum

Instituto Clima e Sociedade

“Ending deforestation, sustainable agriculture and accelerating the energy transition are part of Brazil’s core answer to climate change - actions that deliver emission reductions and carbon removal; SRM can never replace that. But UNEP’s best-case pathway still peaks at 1.7–1.8°C, putting at risk the Amazon and the rains that our harvests, hydropower and development depend on - rains SRM could also alter. Latin American voices must help decide how SRM is studied, governed, or rejected.”
Roberto Kishinami headshot
Roberto Kishinami Senior Lead Specialist

Instituto Clima e Sociedade

“We do not need to decide the future of SRM today. We do need governance to guide inquiry, sustain restraint on deployment, support preparedness, and enable legitimate future choices in the context of climate risk management during periods of overshoot, as highlighted in recent UNEP assessments.”
Kai Uwe Barani Schmidt headshot
Kai-Uwe Barani Schmidt Volunteer Senior Expert, ICS Instituto Clima e Sociedade (Brazil); Formerly DED at C2G initiative

Download White Paper

Join Us

  • Menu

Human rights and justice at the core

Principle 1

Justice considerations are critical, not supplemental. Decisions about SRM research and governance must be centered on the overall impact on human rights, including the right to life, health, food, water, participation, and access to science and information. These include recognition of asymmetries between those responsible for emissions and those experiencing climate impacts across LDCs and the Arctic, as well as concerns related to intergenerational equity and global power imbalances.

Commitment to mitigation, adaptation, and broader climate response

Principle 2

Emissions reductions remain the only approach that directly addresses the root causes of climate change. Any discussion of SRM research should therefore be grounded within a broader climate strategy that prioritizes mitigation, adaptation, and the protection of life in a warming world. Accountable research governance and policy design should be implemented to minimize the risk of moral hazard.

SRM research as a public good under responsible governance

Principle 3

SRM research should be conducted in the public interest, funded transparently through public-interest mechanisms, and governed to advance human and ecological well-being, rather than proprietary, commercial, or geopolitical advantage.

Inclusion, participation, and the right to shape scientific agendas

Principle 4

Communities — especially in climate-vulnerable regions, including LDCs and Arctic communities — must have meaningful opportunities not only to participate in SRM discussions, but to shape research agendas, define risks, and influence governance frameworks. This requires investment in accessible, two-way communication and the institutional and funding infrastructure that makes sustained agenda-setting possible. It also requires mutual respect for diverse knowledge systems.

Transparency, accountability, and responsible knowledge generation

Principle 5

SRM research should remain in the light of public scrutiny. SRM research and related activities should be conducted with high standards of transparency, including open publication of methods, assumptions, uncertainties, and funding sources. Accountability mechanisms are essential to build trust and inclusion, and ensure traceability of decision-making and interests.

Governance should be proportionate to risk

Principle 6

SRM research and SRM deployment are fundamentally different activities with different ethical, legal, and human consequences, and research itself encompasses a wide variety of approaches and objectives ranging from desk research and modeling to field experiments. Well-designed governance approaches should be proportionate to the specific risks presented by SRM research or deployment activities, rather than treating all research activities as equivalent or as a single continuum.

Restraint on deployment and prevention of unilateral action

Principle 7

Responsible engagement with SRM requires strong norms of restraint regarding deployment. Under current conditions of scientific uncertainty, insufficient governance capacity, and limited international legitimacy, SRM should not be deployed. Preventing unilateral or poorly governed action is essential to protecting human rights, maintaining global stability, and preserving public trust. Achieving this will require more than voluntary restraint alone, including legitimate governance arrangements capable of providing oversight, review, monitoring, and meaningful mechanisms for accountability.