Policymakers and climate researchers from across the Americas gathered at the Mexican Senate on 20–21 August 2026 for a two-day science-policy dialogue on solar radiation modification (SRM). Co-organised by the Degrees Initiative, UCLA Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), the workshop built on the momentum of recent gatherings in Chile and Panama.
Aiming to strengthen science-policy connections and ground future decisions on SRM in research generated within the region, the event brought together 31 policymakers, of whom 25 were legislators, and 8 Degrees-funded researchers from 15 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean.
Unpacking SRM science, law, and policy at the Senate
The meeting was opened by Elizabeth Fiesco Díaz, the Alternate Coordinator for Directive Affairs, who was standing in for the leader of the senate, Laura Itzel Castillo Juárez. She emphasised the vital role of science in policy, warning that current trends point towards 2.8°C of warming and noting that policymakers need to understand options like SRM to be able to make informed, responsible decisions. Her remarks were followed by introductions to UCLA, UNAM and words from Degrees’ Chief of Staff, Dr Jesse Reynolds.
To establish a common understanding of solar geoengineering approaches, Prof. Inés Camilloni presented the core scientific fundamentals of SRM. Prof. Graciela Raga then spoke to the Mexican context, presenting research exploring SRM’s potential impacts on heatwaves. Decision makers were then given the time to ask questions, to build their understanding of SRM.
Subsequent sessions turned to the patchwork of legal and international policy frameworks surrounding SRM. A presentation from UCLA’s Prof. Ted Parson outlined the governance challenges, regulatory gaps, and legal dimensions of potential deployment and research. A panel of policy experts provided a range of reactions and perspectives. They emphasised that SRM cannot replace deep emissions reductions, which remains the top priority, but highlighted that further research is needed to understand its potential.
During afternoon breakout sessions, participants convened in small groups to deliberate on the specific implications of SRM for Latin America. Group discussions focused on:
- identifying key regional vulnerabilities across Latin American and Caribbean ecosystems, agriculture, and public health;
- evaluating how SRM intersects with existing climate governance and diplomatic channels; and
- addressing the ethical considerations and risks of moral hazard associated with SRM proposals.
Discussing the state of regional research capacity
Day two focused on local scientific expertise and practical steps for regional science-policy capacity building. Attendees heard a series of research presentations from Degrees-funded projects led by researchers in Latin America:
- Biodiversity: Dr Julián Velasco presented on the ecological implications and potential impacts of SRM on regional biodiversity.
- Social sciences: Dr María Inés Carbajal explored socio-political dimensions, public perception, and governance considerations.
- Economics: Dr Francisco Estrada detailed research modelling the potential economic consequences of climate impacts and SRM interventions in Mexico and Central America.
A panel of researchers then discussed the current state of SRM research in Latin America & the Caribbean, discussing what they have learned so far, as well as key knowledge gaps that could be filled with further study. This discussion was followed by an open and engaging Q&A.
Connecting up science and policy – next steps for Latin America & the Caribbean
The workshop concluded with a discussion, led by policymakers, exploring what specific information policymakers in the region need to make informed decisions. Panellists and delegates discussed practical pathways to establish an active Latin American voice in global SRM governance conversations, including enhancing regional research capacities and fostering cross-border science-policy networks.
At the closing of the meeting, organisers and participants reaffirmed the necessity of continuing these dialogues, to ensure the region shapes international governance frameworks rather than remaining a passive bystander to decisions made elsewhere.