Study Examines Geoengineering Governance Alongside Arms Control Regimes
21 August 2026 | ZEROGeoengineering.com | The report below published in April 2026 by the Metis Institute for Strategy and Foresight at the University of the Bundeswehr Munich, underscores the importance of addressing policy related to geoengineering research. The study examines geoengineering governance frameworks in the context of arms control and dual-use weapons systems.
Though the framing of the article rests on an unsubstantiated hypothesis regarding a global temperature, [1][2][3] key facts are presented, including that geoengineering is dual-use technology “in the field of weapons of mass destruction.” The authors also point out that a number of companies worldwide have been raising money for private geoengineering experiments and that current governance frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity actually allow for controlled research experimentation.
“…parallels can be drawn with biological weapons due to the particularly pronounced dual-use problem.”
“The field of arms control regimes offers no blueprint for geoengineering governance.”
Link To Full Study #48 Geoengineering Governance University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich
Sources
[1] Does A Global Temperature Exist? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259098600_Does_a_Global_Temperature_Exist
[ Full Text: https://zeronotification.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Does-Global-Temperature-Exist.pdf ]
“There is no global temperature. The reasons lie in the properties of the equation of state governing local thermodynamic equilibrium, and the implications cannot be avoided by substituting statistics for physics.”
[2] Whole Rubric of Global Temperature is a Fake and a Fraud https://rumble.com/v6udzwl-jonathan-cohler-whole-rubric-of-global-temperature-is-a-fake-and-a-fraud-to.html
[3] A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V6.pdf
“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.”
Related
2018 Security Framework Characterizes Geoengineering as Weapon of War
European Parliament Advocates for Global SRM Research Governance Framework
Thiel-Backed Cloud Seeding Firm Moves to Block State Legislation