7 hours Ago By Maeve Campbell, Contributor
Solar geoengineering. AFP PHOTO / Louisa Gouliamaki (Photo credit should read LOUISA ..
. [+] GOULIAMAKI/AFP via Getty Images) The idea that we can save the world using technology alone is growing steadily more popular. From carbon dioxide removal machines , which absorb CO2 from the air, to ‘ ocean fertilization ’ ships that release iron into the water to stimulate the growth of carbon-sucking phytoplankton, novel climate solutions are gaining more and more traction.
To many, these concepts sound outlandish. They represent what eco-feminist Jennie Stephens might call “masculine technological optimism,” which she says fails to respond to the gravity of the climate crisis. A narrow focus on investing in technology to “solve” climate change is dangerous, Stephens argues in a recent paper .
But should we tar all tech solutions with the same brush? Over the past year there has been a lot of hype around solar geoengineering, so I looked into it to find out what it is and whether it could actually help us address global warming. Solar geoengineering is about using techniques to reduce the sun’s radiation, therefore cooling the planet in the process. Perhaps the most famous example is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection — A.
K.A. injecting particles up into the stratosphere, in order to reflect sunlight back into space.
This can happen naturally. For example in 1991, the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines emitted 20 millions amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere, which cooled the global climate by about 0.5 degrees Celsius during the years following.
(However, some argue that other climate oscillations, like El Niño and La Niña events, may have also contributed to the temperature drop.) Election 2024 Swing State Polls: Georgia, North Carolina Still Razor-Thin—And Pennsylvania’s A Tie (Updated) Samsung’s Impossible Deadline—You Have 24 Hours To Update Your Phone Microsoft Update Warning—400 Million Windows PCs Now At Risk For years, scientists have been exploring how to inject aerosols into the atmosphere artificially — and it’s popular with billionaires. Bill Gates has been known to back certain projects and there are rumors of both Musk and Besoz flirting with the idea.
By funding this sort of research, some say the world’s richest entrepreneurs are simply “resorting to desperate science fiction.” Artist rendering of the NASA Solar Dynamics Observatory near the Sun, created on March 24, 2021. .
.. [+] (Illustration by Adrian Mann/Future Publishing via Getty Images) This month, Sandro Vattioni, a professor in Experimental Atmospheric Physics in Zurich, published a particularly zany study in the field — looking at whether we could shoot diamonds into the sky to cool the planet down.
His team’s modeling showed that tiny synthetic diamond particles would be highly effective at reflecting both sunlight and heat, and would remain in the atmosphere for a significant period of time. The study claims injecting 5 million tons of the diamond dust into the atmosphere annually could reduce global temperatures by 1.6°C, over the course of 45 years.
Vattioni is under no illusion that an experiment like this would tackle the root cause of global warming. “But it would treat some of the symptoms of climate change,” he tells me. “It could temporarily reduce some of the risks.
” He explains that the “dismal prospects” of planet earth overshooting 1.5 degrees C have motivated researchers like him to look into how the climate could “temporarily be cooled artificially, until we have reached net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions”. It would work “in theory”, he says, but would come with an astronomical price tag — an estimated $200 trillion — meaning this solution is far from feasible in the immediate future.
Diamonds on a beach in Iceland. So should we shrug off solar geoengineering as, at best, unconventional, but essentially harmless? Despite the best efforts of many, global emissions are still escalating day by day. Surely, anything’s worth a try? Is There A Future For Solar Engineering? Raymond Pierrehumbert is one of the world’s leading physics professors at the University of Oxford.
He says no — that’s not the right attitude. In fact, experimenting with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is “bonkers.” “Research on solar geoengineering is a waste of money, it develops the technology without answering the big questions about the dangers - and poses a dire threat to our future,” Pierrehumbert tells me.
“It would have side effects. Reflecting sunlight causes all sorts of changes in the rainfall patterns and other climate systems.” And even if you were to succeed in cooling the planet somewhat — the CO2 is still there, Pierrehumbert explains.
“The particles put in the upper atmosphere would fall out in about a year, and thus would need to be renewed more or less annually. Since carbon dioxide, once emitted, continues to strongly affect the climate and maintain warming for thousands of years, solar geoengineering commits future generations of humanity to continue the technology, without fail, essentially forever.” Then there is the global governance perspective.
If solar geoengineering solutions continue to gain traction and investment, would we even be able to deploy them responsibly — and could it even make things worse? “Firstly, how would we run it? You would need to have a global decision-making body and decide, for example, what the global temperature is you’re going for. Who would have the control of the technologies?” says Frank Biermann, Professor of Global Sustainability Governance, talking to me from Utrecht University. “We do not need solar geoengineering.
It’s only needed if policies continue to fail,” he says. “The danger is it is being seen as an alternative to mitigation. These ideas derail and delay the Paris Agreement and must not be further pursued.
” “The risk is that people will go to conferences like the UN General Assembly and think ‘we can all chill out a bit’ with regard to mitigation efforts, because we have solar geoengineering.” Solar radiation. NASA (Visible Earth).
But not everyone agrees. According to the diamond study’s researcher, Vattioni, “not doing research into Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or banning it, would be looking away from a technology which could potentially save lives and avoid some climate change impacts.” Biermann instead advocates for regulatory action.
“If there is a possibility for a simple, technological fix to climate change, many want to take it. But what we really need is global standards for heating, automobile transportation and flights..
.to address the climate crisis. The problem is — this is unpopular and also costly.
” It’s no surprise that oil and gas companies are suspected to be investing, according to Biermann. Perhaps investing in experiments like shooting diamonds into the sky acts as a sexy distraction from all the carbon they emit? Pierrehumbert agrees. “It will be used as an excuse to continue burning fossil fuels,” he adds.
And what about the implications to the Global South - which is already worst hit by the impacts of climate change? “Who expects that those who run the tech companies, and invest in the airplanes that travel to space, will share the decision-making with African or South Pacific countries?” says Biermann. He points to the fact that at the UN Environment Assembly earlier this year, Switzerland tabled the idea of an expert committee on solar engineering technologies — but this faced significant opposition from African nations — who rejected it. “If we don't stop solar geoengineering now - we commit our children to an artificially managed planet,” concludes Biermann, who recently signed a letter along with 550 scientists and academics, calling on governments to work towards an International Non-Use Agreement on solar geoengineering.
Ultimately, we are all frustrated at how slow the world is at tackling the climate emergency. In the past two decades, climate change has fuelled the world’s 10 worst weather disasters and contributed to the deaths of more than 570,000 people. We need solutions fast.
But are some of them more risky than we think?.
