Solar Geoengineering: Playing with Sunbeams Could Scorch the Earth, but Not Billionaires’ Plans

When South Korean director Bong Joon-ho filmed his science fiction movie ‘Snowpiercer’ in 2013, the plot revolved around the Earth warming up very quickly, necessitating a rapid solution. This quick cinematic solution involved releasing aerosols into the sky. It was a desperate attempt by the film’s scientists to save planet Earth; however, as often happens in movies, everything went wrong.

Instead of stopping global warming, they caused an ice age. The very techniques of solar geoengineering depicted in the film are now being invoked by many experts and billionaires (Bill Gates) to tackle climate change. Solar geoengineering describes a set of hypothetical technologies aimed at reducing incoming sunlight to Earth. Such speculative interventions are sometimes referred to as solar radiation management (SRM) or modifications of solar radiation.

Solar geoengineering is primarily discussed as a planetary-level intervention to lower global average temperatures, with one of the many still untested techniques being the proposal to inject aerosols into the stratosphere to prevent the influx of solar energy.

Strengthening the Idea

The idea of solar geoengineering is gaining traction in several industrialized countries. In March 2021, for example, a report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that the United States should establish, ideally in international cooperation, a research program to assess the feasibility of solar geoengineering as a temporary measure to address the problem of excessive warming of the Earth.

Following the report, it did not take long for the White House to announce a five-year research plan to evaluate possible climate interventions, including the dispersal of aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. Harvard University has also established a solar geoengineering research program that plans, among other things, the ‘Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment’ to study the behavior of stratospheric aerosols.

This is the idea of David Keith, a scientist at the university who proposed the project in 2017, which would involve launching rockets filled with sulfur aerosols into the upper atmosphere, which would then explode and disperse chemicals. This project has also received financial support from Gates.

Behind these truly science fiction ideas lies the claim that these tiny particles of a chemical known to have toxic effects on health should act as a temporary shield from the Sun. However, these are still just ideas, as there is fierce resistance to such experiments, as was seen in Sweden last year. The planned field testing by the Harvard group over Sweden faced strong local opposition from the indigenous population and ecologists, so the testing has been halted for now.

In some scientific and expert circles, this research is considered potentially dangerous for the climate, as well as for humans and the environment. In fact, many are aware of this, but climate leaders are determined to reduce humanity’s emissions and will do everything to achieve these goals.

Proponents of solar geoengineering research argue, implicitly or explicitly, that international climate governance is largely ineffective and that the goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to less than 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, is unlikely to be met given current trends and policies. Therefore, proponents argue, solar geoengineering needs to be explored now to better understand its potential effectiveness and to be available, if deemed feasible, as a future option.

According to these perspectives, solar geoengineering could be used in the future either as a temporary measure to buy time for achieving full decarbonization or as ‘insurance’ in case carbon neutrality cannot be achieved on schedule.

There Are Concerns

The increasing calls for research and development of solar geoengineering are a cause for alarm for many, as the effectiveness of solar geoengineering is insufficiently understood. These concerned experts and activists believe that the impacts of solar geoengineering would vary from region to region, as this artificial cooling could affect some regions more than others. There are also uncertainties about the effects on regional weather patterns, agriculture, and meeting basic needs for food and water. Current research often relies on idealized modeling schemes and assumes policies that will be impossible to realize in today’s fractional international order.

Even with more research, there is a deeply rooted disagreement about whether the risks and effectiveness of solar geoengineering can ever be fully understood before implementation and whether specific effects can later be attributed to such interventions. Additionally, concerned scientists have signed an open letter titled ‘Sixteen Initiators of the Agreement on the Non-Use of Solar Geoengineering,’ expressing their concerns and stating that there are three main reasons to prevent the use of such technologies. First, they point to unknown risks: the application of solar geoengineering technology could backfire on us.

‘Risks of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be fully known. Impacts will vary from region to region, and there are uncertainties about effects on weather patterns, agriculture, and meeting basic needs for food and water,’ the scientists state.

Speculative Prospects

Then, they say, governments or corporations could use these technologies to prevent work on other, less risky methods of combating climate change, such as reducing fossil fuel use.

‘The speculative possibility of future solar geoengineering risks becoming a strong argument for industrial lobbyists, climate deniers, and some governments to delay decarbonization policies,’ the authors write.

Finally, they ask, who could decide how solar geoengineering should be used – and how such a decision would be fair?

‘The current system of global governance is not suitable for developing and implementing far-reaching agreements necessary to maintain fair, inclusive, and effective political control over the introduction of solar geoengineering. The United Nations Security Council, dominated by only five veto-wielding countries, lacks the global legitimacy needed to effectively regulate the application of solar geoengineering,’ the scientists conclude in the open letter.

Ultimately Unnecessary

Frank Biermann, a professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University and one of the initiators of the letter, summarized the signatories’ stance by stating that ‘solar geoengineering is simply not necessary.’ The letter further calls for five measures that the international community must adhere to: no public funding for solar geoengineering, no outdoor experiments, no patents for solar geoengineering technology, no application of such technology, and no support from international institutions for solar geoengineering.

More than 45 prominent academics, law professors, and writers have signed the letter, including award-winning author Amitav Ghosh, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard Kennedy School Sheila Jasanoff, and professor of physics at the University of Oxford Raymond T. Pierrehumbert.

And it is not only academics who oppose the concept and practice of solar geoengineering. In June 2021, around 30 groups of indigenous peoples from around the world called on Harvard University to abandon Gates’ plans to test its solar geoengineering technology with the help of the Swedish Space Corporation. The indigenous peoples were successful, and the test was canceled.

Distraction

Nevertheless, the discussion about solar geoengineering is likely to continue, as it enjoys support from wealthy individuals like Gates and key scientific institutions, including the powerful U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. On the other hand, Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) aims to push the United Nations to discuss solar geoengineering at the UN General Assembly in 2023 – although C2G emphasizes that its stance is strictly impartial and that the initiative simply seeks effective governance of technologies.

Efforts will also increase to create a new international agreement on the non-use of solar geoengineering, and this is precisely what the signatories of the aforementioned letter are working on. They conclude that such an agreement, unlike agreements on the use of geoengineering, would be feasible and effective and that such an agreement would prevent further normalization and development of a risky and poorly understood set of technologies that seek to deliberately manage sunlight at a planetary level, all without limiting legitimate climate research.

Proponents of such an agreement add that this would prevent a dangerous distraction from current climate policies by removing the false promise of a cheap and feasible alternative ‘Plan B’ in the form of solar geoengineering. They also state that it would not be politically manageable in the current environment, which would be a prerequisite for global actions against solar rays.