The Benefits and Risks Associated with Environmental Engineering Techniques
The debate surrounding solar geoengineering, a potential solution to combat climate change by cooling the planet, is gaining traction worldwide. This controversial approach, which includes removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or deflecting solar radiation, is generating heated discussions among scholars, policymakers, and the general public.
More than 450 scholars have signed a letter, stating that any discussion on solar geoengineering could legitimize what should remain a taboo. The anticapitalist green left sees it as a capitalist pseudo-solution, while others argue it could be a capitalist ruse, a delaying strategy of the fossil fuel industry to make decarbonisation efforts appear less urgent.
A 2018 article in Nature showed there was a "good chance" that the "safe" threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius would be breached by 2030. In response, some experts suggest expanding public infrastructure for climate-altering technology research, such as the Earth's Radiation Budget Initiative within the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EU's GeoEngineering and Negative Emissions pathways in Europe (GENIE).
The real controversy starts with the second method of geoengineering, which involves deflecting solar radiation to cool the Earth's surface. This method is discussed and developed as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). In 2022, American entrepreneur Luke Iseman, through his US startup Make Sunsets, released two weather balloons in Mexico's Baja California containing sulphur dioxide, an SAI technique. The Mexican government responded strongly, initiating drafts for legislation to ban unauthorized use of climate-altering technologies.
Others argue that massive intervention in the climate system could have harmful consequences, such as disturbance of weather patterns, widespread damage to ecosystems, planetary pollution, and a decline in public health. Holly Jean Buck, Assistant Professor of Environment and Sustainability, argued that a ban on geoengineering research would lead to clandestine and illegal research, increasing the risk of rogue trials.
The current global stance on publicly funded research into solar geoengineering technologies is cautious but increasingly engaged. Experts and funders emphasize the importance of physical climate and social science research alongside public engagement, especially given varied regional risks and ethical concerns. The European Parliament has publicly called for global action, including a non-use agreement on solar geoengineering, reflecting concern about its environmental, climatic, and geopolitical risks.
There is a clear recognition that solar geoengineering remains risky, untested, and potentially regionally uneven in impact, which guides this prudent approach. Concurrently, there are growing calls for international cooperation and governance frameworks to manage both research and possible future deployment, including proposals for non-use agreements and inclusive global decision-making.
In 2022, concerned scientists launched a "solar geoengineering non-use agreement" initiative, calling for political action to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option. Andreas Malm, a prominent voice in the climate movement, argues that solar geoengineering could achieve long-term success if there is a shift from a free market economy to democratic planning.
Some view solar geoengineering as a necessary part of a broader climate strategy, including emissions mitigation and carbon dioxide removal. However, others argue that we should look to nature-based solutions, such as carbon sequestration through soil-based carbon sequestration, which aims to store carbon in agricultural soil.
The experiment by Make Sunsets provoked discussions about solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management (SRM), and whether it could do more harm than good. A recent study shows that countries in the Global South, particularly those with younger populations, are increasingly supportive of climate intervention technologies like solar geoengineering.
In summary, while solar geoengineering research is advancing with some public funding, the global stance remains cautious with emphasis on transparency, robust governance, and international cooperation. International institutions and regional bodies like the EU advocate for frameworks that can include non-use agreements and shared decision-making processes to manage risks and ethical concerns effectively.
Solar geoengineering research, such as the Earth's Radiation Budget Initiative and the EU's GeoEngineering and Negative Emissions pathways, receives some public funding,but the global stance remains cautious, focusing on transparency, robust governance, and international cooperation. Environmental scientists like Holly Jean Buck argue that a ban on geoengineering research could lead to clandestine and illegal research, increasing the risk of rogue trials.
