What have been the implications of the experimentation of Solar Radiation Modification in Mexico?

Below are edited highlights from the full C2GTalk interview shown in the video above. Some answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Dr. Ávila, to begin with, I wanted to ask you to tell us a little about your work and some of the climate issues that the Mexican government is focused on today. What are some of the main climate change impacts in Mexico and the region and the main strategies and challenges to address and reduce these impacts in Mexico and the region? 

Hi Alia, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here with you today. Our work here in the Government of Mexico, in the Climate Change Unit, has to do with the construction of public policy on this matter for our country and it has to do with this component that we have put in it, climate action in the territories of Mexico to face the impacts [of climate change]. The first thing I would tell you is that Mexico is a country that contributes very little to general greenhouse gas emissions, but is increasingly receiving the impacts of climate change. We are observing in our country the rise of the sea level on both coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean. We are attending, for example, a community that is the community of the forest in Centla, Tabasco, which is already disappearing due to the rise in sea level. And since we have this situation of rising sea levels, we also have an extreme drought that led us last year, for example, to declare an emergency due to drought in the north of the country. And along with that, we have processes of landslides, flooding due to torrential rains or the arrival of hurricanes, both in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific Ocean. So, Mexico is a country that is being very vulnerable to climate change, which is feeling its impacts more and more. As the Government of Mexico, what we are doing is acting, acting as much to reduce our emissions, which is why at COP 27, Mexico promised to increase its climate reduction goals, we went from 22 to 35 percent. But we are also making progress in building the new public policy on adaptation with the people. A participatory adaptation from the bottom up, which seeks to involve the people directly affected and begin to build climate resilience strategies from there that allow strengthening the generation, for example, of food at the local level through agroecological techniques and not of monocultures, which allows green walls to be placed in front of those sometimes only technological solutions that are visualized by large companies, which allows an ecological ordering of the territory based on its aptitudes that the territory has, 

Yes, in short, a series of very important challenges for a government like yours, which is at the forefront of all the consequences of climate change and, of course, a country that has a very small footprint internationally. Dr. Ávila, at the end of last year there was a controversial event that caused strong reactions around the world. A new US commercial company launched a balloon in Baja California, designed to release aerosols into the stratosphere, proposing what they call a cooling credit scheme. And days after this news broke, the Federal Government of Mexico published an official statement announcing that it would prohibit experiments to modify solar radiation. Could you tell us a little more about the sequence of events that led to the communication by INECC and SEMARNAT? What happened in these moments? Was the Mexican government informed about this experiment? 

Look, the first thing I would say is that the climate crisis we are experiencing requires real solutions. It does not require seeing climate change as just another green business, but what we require are real mitigation actions and adaptation actions in the territory. We learned that a United States company based in Boston, a startup, was conducting solar geoengineering experiments in our country without requesting any type of permit from the federal, state, or municipal governments. So, the first thing that we want to clearly state as the government of Mexico is that we are not going to experiment with any type of these technologies in our territory. Second, undoubtedly, this act was carried out without the consent of the Government of Mexico, It is a violation of our national sovereignty. Third, different studies tell us about the possible collateral impacts of the use of this technology, which this process of reflecting the sun’s rays can generate in some areas, since it can generate a period of drought in other regions or, as the case may be, , also the concentration of rainfall in the tropics. In addition to what can be the thinning of the ozone layer, which different scientific studies have also related to the use that this technology can bring. the concentration of rainfall in the tropics as well. In addition to what can be the thinning of the ozone layer, which different scientific studies have also related to the use that this technology can bring. the concentration of rainfall in the tropics as well. In addition to what can be the thinning of the ozone layer, which different scientific studies have also related to the use that this technology can bring. 

So, the communiqué was signed jointly by the Ministry of the Environment, Natural Resources of the Government of Mexico, the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change and the National Council of Sciences and Technology of Mexico. The latter is very important because it is where scientific research in our country is carried out and where finally the experts, the researchers, are alerting themselves to the use of this technology and its probable impact not only on the climate, but also on social reproduction itself. of the people of Mexico who may have affected their rainfall cycle for agricultural production or who may even be affected in climate migration processes at a certain moment, if it stops raining in some territory and they cannot produce their food. 

And just to clarify a point here, is the research topic also prohibited or is it a matter of prohibiting indoor/outdoor experimentation? 

All. We are not going to allow research and experimentation in the field of solar geoengineering to be carried out in the national territory. It is not a priority of the Government of Mexico. We believe that we have to carry out real actions to mitigate climate change, especially from large corporations, many companies from the United States that are installed in our territory, which have to make a great effort to mitigate the greenhouse gases that they are generating. this climate crisis. And we think that’s where you have to invest in technology. That we really substantially reduce the carbon dioxide that’s being sent into the atmosphere and the methane, which is undoubtedly being produced as well, which is why, for example, like SEMARNAT, 

Thank you for this clarification, doctor. So, at the national level, what measures is the Mexican government taking or planning to take? Could you give us a little information? 

We maintain close coordination with the National Council of Sciences and Technology, CONACYT. We have already carried out a panel of experts at the Latin American level, mainly on the subject. We have participated in meetings of the Ministers of the Environment and Climate Change offices of Ibero-America, with whom we have discussed this specific situation of solar geoengineering. We have informed you of the intention of the Government of Mexico to publicize this decree prohibiting solar geoengineering in our country in the near future and that at the international level we can also advance the direction of international governance on this issue and this type of experiment. So, in that sense, we have also spoken with the government of Germany, 

Perfect. And in your conversations with countries like Germany, for example, or others, or in the different multilateral spaces that he commented on, what kind of reactions have you found when addressing this issue, because in reality this conversation is still very green. Many countries are not very informed about it, actually. So it would be interesting to know what kind of reactions you have found in these conversations. 

Clear. If it is a very new subject at the international level, Mexico had the misfortune of being the first country in the world where this experimentation was carried out. So, it has been a new topic, new. They are finally awaiting the regulations that the Government of Mexico will announce on this matter and undoubtedly we will have the possibility of developing bilateral or multilateral meetings that will allow us to generate, towards COP 28 or within the United Nations, an initiative in The matter. What we believe is that resources against climate change must be focused on real actions to mitigate and adapt to climate change. What we see here is a diversion of resources in a speculative sphere on a technology that we undoubtedly do not know if it will help us or really generate greater negative effects on populations already impacted by climate change. So, what we would be placing as the Government of Mexico, as an environment, is this need to direct, for example, international resources where the losses and damages due to climate change are being generated. Placing the people and nature that is undergoing this process of temperature changes on the planet at the center. international resources where the losses and damages due to climate change are being generated. Placing the people and nature that is undergoing this process of temperature changes on the planet at the center. international resources where the losses and damages due to climate change are being generated. Placing the people and nature that is undergoing this process of temperature changes on the planet at the center. 

So, dedicating ourselves to protecting the animals and the vegetation that is changing all its ecological reproduction cycles due to the change in temperature is more urgent than spending money on this type of experimentation that can generate adverse effects, as various scientific studies have shown. that have already been carried out in different parts of the world. 

It’s very clear, thank you. And just now I wanted to address the issue. You know that at the end of February UNEP published a report by a panel of independent experts called “One Atmosphere”, in which it stated, among other things, that given the many unknowns and risks surrounding the modification of radiation solar, there is a strong need to establish an international scientific review process to identify scenarios, consequences, uncertainties and insights. He also believes that a governance process would be valuable in guiding decisions around research activities, including indoor research, small-scale outdoor experiments, and deployments of different solar radiation modification techniques. I don’t know if you know Mexico was a co-sponsor of the UNEA 4 proposed resolution in 2019 on the governance of geoengineering, which was withdrawn due to lack of consensus after a week of intense negotiations. In light of this, I wanted to ask you if you could tell us a little about Mexico’s vision of the role of UNEA or UNEP at that time and what your vision would be today. 

Look, I believe that this document recently released by UNEP, “An Atmosphere”, I think it is a good roadmap for what is happening globally. We need to strengthen the governance of entry in this matter, where companies or start-ups ultimately related to the use of this technology understand that there is a national framework for action, that there are rules, that finally there is only one globally interconnected climate, in the sense that what can be done in Indonesia is going to have an impact in the United States or in China or in Mexico. It is an interconnected planet, alive, some would even say in terms of GAIA. So, what we require is, finally, more scientific studies on the subject. A precautionary principle, of course, of the probable effects that this use of technology can have on the lives of millions of people. We need, undoubtedly, because one of the great achievements of humanity was to stop the thinning of the ozone layer on this planet, which showed the international will on a key issue and open space for this technology, when several studies are telling us that It will help to lose weight, because it is going against the international agreement that we had already made and that is successful, which is something that gives us hope. 

If we, the countries, could come to an agreement to deal with the depletion of the ozone layer, the countries can really come to an agreement on how to deal with climate change. And there it is very important, and I say it again, not to see climate change as a business opportunity for new technologies that have not been scientifically proven, that can really help their ends, but rather to concentrate the resources to fight climate change, finally in in terms of mitigation so that companies really reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, in terms of environmental education to reduce the prevailing consumerism of the current economic system, which I believe is essential for this obsolescence that digital and technological devices have created and the same clothes of the same foods that come from thousands of kilometers away and that you do not know how they are produced, then you have to change the pattern of global consumption betting on short marketing circuits, short production and marketing circuits. So, there you have to put resources. If we change our consumption patterns, we will contribute a lot to reducing greenhouse gases. And to all this, well, undoubtedly, invest in climate adaptation, as I already mentioned. We will contribute a lot in the reduction of greenhouse gases. And to all this, well, undoubtedly, invest in climate adaptation, as I already mentioned. We will contribute a lot in the reduction of greenhouse gases. And to all this, well, undoubtedly, invest in climate adaptation, as I already mentioned. 

We have the group of island countries, whose calls in the framework of the United Nations and the COPs about how their countries are disappearing are desperate. And we need there, finally, in a sense of humanity, to generate the pertinent actions, not only to protect the lives of these people, but of all the nature that exists around these spaces that we are losing. So, let’s break that anthropocentric vision of using a technology that will save us from the same destruction that we are generating to the planet due to this excessive use of energy and technologies around fossil issues. Let’s break that and create one more vision of coexistence of human beings with nature urgently. Reconnecting with nature is an urgent need for the planet and humanity today. So, 

We have to change our mentality, therefore, and that mentality implies thinking that this model is not sustainable in the long term, the one we are living in, and we need another model of society and that it is also already being built in many parts of the planet. In Mexico we have very interesting experiences that are being carried out by collectives, associations, ejidos, communities, where they are managing their territory in a sustainable manner, where they are finally taking advantage of the forest and conserving it, taking care of the rest of the living beings and that, above all, has left Of the indigenous peoples of Mexico, our country is the Latin American country with the largest number, in absolute terms, of indigenous people. And perhaps that means that especially in the south / southeast of the country we are working and conserving natural resources much better, unlike a north of the country very connected to the United States, where unfortunately the connection to nature is already very small. The economic has been preferred over life and over the environment, and that is why in those areas we have great environmental devastation, pollution of the river, of the air. In other words, the city of Monterrey has more days with unbreathable air than good quality air. 

So, this model is the one that must be questioned and resources must be devoted to reconverting all these issues in order to have long-term viability. 

Yes, there is definitely a lot of work that must continue to be done in this area, even though those of us who are involved in these processes have been working in this regard for decades, but things are moving slowly. And you were just talking about what we refer to as moral hazard, diverting attention precisely from the measures that have to be prioritized to face climate change and to guarantee the sustainability of ecosystems, maintain biodiversity; and obviously human beings depend on this for our survival. But obviously there are also those who, faced with this situation where we see very slow progress, get frustrated and consider that research on this subject is imperative. So obviously a complex debate which is not a question I want to address here, but I wanted to consult you because precisely in this regard, the IPCC in its latest report points out that the lack of formal and solid governance around the modification of solar radiation is a risk in itself. So, in any case, whether one is for or against the development of these technologies, we have to somehow address the issue of governance. And in that sense, what I wanted to ask you is, in your opinion, what role could international organizations like the United Nations play in developing governance frameworks around solar radiation modification to address these risks? In any case, whether one is for or against the development of these technologies, we have to somehow address the issue of governance. And in that sense, what I wanted to ask you is, in your opinion, what role could international organizations like the United Nations play in developing governance frameworks around solar radiation modification to address these risks? In any case, whether one is for or against the development of these technologies, we have to somehow address the issue of governance. And in that sense, what I wanted to ask you is, in your opinion, what role could international organizations like the United Nations play in developing governance frameworks around solar radiation modification to address these risks? 

Well, I think that what the United Nations has to do in this regard is an important role. It is what has allowed us in recent decades, undoubtedly, to have an international framework that orders the question of how we are acting on the planet. So, betting on that construction of governance where there are clear rules, where experimentation or the use of this technology is not allowed, is very, very important. Where the nations undoubtedly see that we need to direct it, I repeat, resources to more urgent and necessary issues for the survival of the planet. And where finally the planet has to be ahead of the economic interests that at a certain moment can come from large corporations around this. For us it is very clear that we need to generate research that helps, for example, the resolution of the national problems that we may have in Mexico, that helps us to face social inequality, climate inequality, that we can advance in terms of infrastructure, mobility, undoubtedly, yes, many of the problems that our country has . And there we are entering the resources that allow us to face the ecological imbalances that we are creating by the economic system and that caused us a pandemic like COVID 19, which unfortunately killed millions of people around the planet and that is the result of this ecological imbalance where there is an intensive exploitation of natural resources. So, preventing new pandemics from coming in the future requires rebalancing nature and that is where our countries’ resources must undoubtedly be placed. I would be concerned, for example, with reaching ambiguous agreements such as the one on underwater mining, currently where the issue of underwater mining is going to be exploited in non-national areas. So, this is very serious, let this exploratory process begin now in non-continental waters. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. reaching ambiguous agreements such as that of underwater mining, currently where the issue of underwater mining is going to be exploited in non-national areas. So, this is very serious, let this exploratory process begin now in non-continental waters. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. reaching ambiguous agreements such as that of underwater mining, currently where the issue of underwater mining is going to be exploited in non-national areas. So, this is very serious, let this exploratory process begin now in non-continental waters. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. currently where the issue of underwater mining is going to be exploited in non-national areas. So, this is very serious, let this exploratory process begin now in non-continental waters. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. currently where the issue of underwater mining is going to be exploited in non-national areas. So, this is very serious, let this exploratory process begin now in non-continental waters. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. And it is a bad example, where in the end a very strong exploitation mechanism puts marine biodiversity and the planet’s oceans at risk, which is where above all the oxygen we breathe is generated, because it is where economic interests are putting above the survival of the planet and our own survival. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans. That’s where we have to pay attention to yet. In other words, we cannot think that if we are going to be exploiting the oceans, we are not going to have an impact on the oceans.  

In this case the same. If we are going to put all these exercises on solar radiation, solar engineering, well, they will undoubtedly have an impact. And it has not been proven that they are really going to help us cool down the planet’s climate, but rather they are going to be able to create imbalances around the planet’s climate.  

We are about to conclude, actually, but I wanted to return for a second to the issue of the risks posed by the governance gap regarding the modification of solar radiation to ask you if you consider that the action of the Government of Mexico is precisely a way to address these governance gaps. 

Clear. I believe that national governments have to generate regulations in this regard so that we are not places for experimentation or use of this technology. In the case of the Government of Mexico, we can do it. We are a sovereign nation, economically strong, that can give itself that opportunity to say no to this type of experimentation in terms of modifying solar radiation. And that is why, in the international framework, it is necessary to build the necessary agreements with other nations, perhaps not with the economic strength or the presence that they have, so that they too at a certain moment can claim the sovereign use of their territory and the experimentation or use of these technologies. So, it is in the sphere of the United Nations, it will be in the sphere of the COP 28 of the United Arab Emirates, where as Mexico we are opening the spaces for dialogue, towards historically the areas of collaboration of the government in Mexico. So, we are talking with countries in Latin America and Ibero-America, and we will continue talking with them and we will generate actions with governments in Africa as well later on. What were you telling me about the COP? 

I was going to ask if the idea is precisely to hold bilateral meetings with different countries about this need to work on the regulation, the governance of the modification of solar radiation, right? 

Yes, we will work at the COP towards a joint declaration of different nations on solar engineering, and we will present it yesterday in the United Arab Emirates. We are talking with nations about the need to regulate this. We also hope that it is done within the framework of the United Nations that we can make progress in this field. 

Very interesting. Thank you, Dr. Avila. And to close this interview, I would like to ask you a slightly more philosophical question, since all this issue of climate change is not very encouraging and you have described all the problems facing Mexico and other countries in the world, the challenges for biodiversity, for ecosystems. So, I wanted to ask you, thinking a little about the enormity of the challenges that lie ahead, how can the world maintain hope without shying away from the gravity of the situation? 

I believe that the world is doing many things. Public officials, governments, we are going at a much lower rate than what the people are doing in the territory that is being built down there. So, in the case of Mexico, we see it. In other words, the people who produce coffee to export to Europe or the United States are producing organic, sustainable coffee, taking care of nature, under shade, taking care of the soil, which is the fundamental resource. So, around coffee, vanilla, cocoa, different very important products in Mexico, the milpa. Corn is produced in Mexico, but corn is produced associated with other crops such as squash, chili peppers, and beans. Well, there is also hope for how the soil is being conserved and biodiversity is being helped. We conducted a study on the impact of the Sembrando Vida program around protected natural areas in our country. And this study was very interesting because this regeneration of nature in places already impacted by destruction or by livestock itself allowed the generation of biological corridors that connected protected natural areas. So, we began to see traces of many animal species, pumas, deer, that were already using these new reforestations to move around, to reach the new protected natural area. And this study was very interesting because this regeneration of nature in places already impacted by destruction or by livestock itself allowed the generation of biological corridors that connected protected natural areas. So, we began to see traces of many animal species, pumas, deer, that were already using these new reforestations to move around, to reach the new protected natural area. And this study was very interesting because this regeneration of nature in places already impacted by destruction or by livestock itself allowed the generation of biological corridors that connected protected natural areas. So, we began to see traces of many animal species, pumas, deer, that were already using these new reforestations to move around, to reach the new protected natural area. 

So, that is undoubtedly a very good achievement and that people are doing down there in the territory, who are generating spaces for how the different goods they produce, who are doing many things in terms of solid waste management. In the case of Mexico, we see above all women leaders defending the territory, who are facing, for example, the arrival of extractive mining companies in their territory, who are standing up very bravely saying we don’t want these companies in the territory or leading the struggle of certain territories in favor of life and ecology against industrial companies that have settled in their territory. So, I think there is hope, there is a movement society that we see in Mexico. I have also seen it because I have had the opportunity to see it in Latin America. So, what we need is to listen more to these people to build public policies with these people, because there is also popular wisdom around climate change. People realize which trees are where pests are already taking place, which animals no longer appear as a result of climate change. It is realizing that some crops can now be grown at much higher altitudes than before, because the climate has changed, that mosquitoes have arrived where predators did not arrive before where [before there were none]… So, people know and people take action against this climate change, take care of the trees in another way, plant them. For example, in Michoacán there is a community called San Jerónimo Purépechas. So, they placed glasses of water for wildlife in their forest reserve and set up camera traps, and it is very interesting that the same community presents all the images of the wild animals that drink there from that water that they placed. But that community, for example, made artificial wetlands. So, instead of spending money on water treatment plants, they put in wetlands, saved a lot on energy, and are sending crystal clear water to Lake Pátzcuaro, one of the most beautiful lakes in our country. And they are people from an organized, indigenous community, who have decided to do it. And so I can tell you thousands of experiences around all of Mexico. So, it is up to us to give visibility to those experiences, to learn from them, because that is where our hope lies. There are companies that destroy the planet, that devastate it, but there is also a society that defends it, that claims, that controls its territory, that is organized in consumption, in production, in the generation of many things at the level of sustainability. And learning from it, we can do many things. 

I love this hopeful message to end this interview. Going down from the desk to the territory would be the message of hope. Thank you very much, Dr. Ávila, for this very interesting conversation. We wish you all the best in your performance and of course you are welcome whenever you want to continue with a next interview. I think there is a lot to talk about. Thanks a lot. 

Well thank you very much. On the contrary, it is a pleasure to talk with you.