Exploring Solar Geoengineering: Should We Block the Sun?
Written on
Chapter 1: The Dystopian Connection
Have you ever watched the 2013 film Snowpiercer? It presents a world where Earth has plunged into an Ice Age due to a failed climate intervention. In the film, scientists attempted to combat global warming by releasing chemicals into the atmosphere to block sunlight, but miscalculations led to disastrous consequences, resulting in a rapid Ice Age. The last survivors travel aboard a perpetually moving train that circles the globe.
When I first viewed this film, I found its premise intriguing. Yet, a decade later, the parallels to real-world events are unsettling. Although the narrative of the film may remain fictional, actual scientists are currently engaged in intense discussions about adopting similar methods to combat climate change. Various organizations are exploring strategies to modify Earth's atmosphere to reflect sunlight and mitigate global warming.
Section 1.1: The Push for Geoengineering
An insightful opinion piece in Scientific American by Chandra Bhushan, head of the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability, and Technology (iFOREST), along with Tarun Gopalakrishnan, a Ph.D. candidate at Tufts University's Fletcher School, highlights the need for transparency in geoengineering discussions. Geoengineering, which refers to the deliberate alteration of Earth's climate, is rapidly moving from the realm of science fiction into potential reality.
Solar geoengineering is one of its branches, aiming to cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation—similar to the methods depicted in Snowpiercer. However, this topic is fraught with controversy. A simple search for "solar geoengineering" reveals a plethora of studies debating the merits and dangers of such approaches.
The first video titled "White House: Blocking the sun could stop climate change – but how can it be done?" discusses the potential and challenges of solar geoengineering, shedding light on a complex issue.
Section 1.2: Current Initiatives and Risks
Bhushan and Gopalakrishnan note that some nations are already implementing localized weather modification technologies. For instance, by 2025, China plans to expand its weather modification program significantly. In Australia, scientists are attempting to save the Great Barrier Reef by injecting saltwater into clouds over the area.
Despite these small-scale experiments, the authors warn that the transition from weather modification to solar radiation modification (SRM) is dangerously close. Several U.S. organizations are pursuing their own SRM initiatives, often sidelining ethical considerations.
In recent years, Harvard University, the University of Washington, and a partnership of four universities in the U.K. have all been on the verge of conducting SRM experiments, only to face resistance from local activists. Nevertheless, some groups continue their experiments without proper oversight. For example, the Arctic Ice Project has been dispersing tiny glass spheres over Arctic ice to reflect sunlight and slow melting.
Chapter 2: The Legal Landscape of Geoengineering
The second video, "Bill Gates on Climate: 'Are We Science People or Are We the Idiots?'" offers insights into the ethical and scientific dilemmas surrounding climate interventions.
One frequently asked question is whether these experiments are legal. A start-up called Make Sunsets, which has been launching weather balloons to inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, claims to be compliant with U.S. agencies. However, Bhushan and Gopalakrishnan argue that this view neglects international regulations, such as the 1985 Vienna Convention, which aims to protect the ozone layer.
Despite the lack of clear regulations governing SRM experiments, the potential global repercussions of these actions are immense. The risks associated with altering the atmosphere could lead to significant changes in the Earth’s climate, impacting ecosystems worldwide.
Additional Research Highlights Concerns
In 2023, two crucial assessments raised alarms about SRM. The U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) cautioned that large-scale SRM deployment is fraught with uncertainties, emphasizing the need for rigorous ethical and scientific review processes.
Similarly, the World Meteorological Organization warned that while SRM could mitigate some effects of climate change, it could also lead to severe unintended consequences, including detrimental changes to the ozone layer.
Section 2.1: The Debate: Should We Proceed?
The debate surrounding solar geoengineering is heated. Some researchers argue that the potential dangers of SRM outweigh its benefits, advocating for a focus on phasing out fossil fuels instead. Others contend that without experimentation, we cannot fully understand the risks or develop effective solutions.
Switzerland proposed the establishment of a U.N. expert group on solar radiation management in 2019, but no agreement was reached among member countries. Critics argue that even informed estimates are based on uncertainty, which can lead to catastrophic outcomes.
Update and Create Regulations
Given the increasing number of ongoing solar geoengineering projects, the time for regulation is now. As the line between research and experimentation blurs, proper oversight is essential to prevent potential disasters.
Bhushan and Gopalakrishnan advocate for updating the Vienna Convention to include SRM research while maintaining a focus on decarbonizing the global economy. With recent advancements in renewable energy, prioritizing sustainable solutions should remain at the forefront of our efforts.
Ultimately, solar geoengineering may serve as a "Plan B" in our climate crisis response. Researching these technologies now could provide vital knowledge for future generations, ensuring they are better equipped to face the challenges ahead.