Solar geoengineering is a hot topic in climate science. A recent report from the UK’s Royal Society highlights its potential benefits and risks. While the technology could help lower global temperatures if used correctly, it poses serious regional risks if deployed without proper coordination.
The report warns that if rogue actors decided to block sunlight only in certain areas, it could lead to stronger hurricanes in the North Atlantic, severe droughts in Africa, and even harm the Amazon rainforest. For example, the injection of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere has shown that while it can cool temperatures, it could lead to unintended consequences for local climates.
Experts like Professor Keith Shine emphasize that geoengineering is not a cure-all. It’s essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions first. Relying solely on these technologies may lead to a “termination shock,” where temperatures rise rapidly if geoengineering efforts stop suddenly. This underscores the importance of a balanced approach to tackling climate change.
The report notes two main methods for solar geoengineering: injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere and marine cloud brightening. The first method has historical precedence, as seen with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which temporarily cooled global temperatures. The second method involves using salt particles to increase cloud reflectivity, a process similar to what occurs from shipping pollution.
Research indicates that geoengineering could alter weather patterns across the globe. For instance, localized efforts in the southern hemisphere could intensify hurricanes in the North Atlantic. This highlights the dilemma of using geoengineering selectively, raising ethical questions about who gets to decide on such measures.
The scientific community is divided. Some researchers argue for further exploration of geoengineering to prepare for potential future use, while others caution that it may lead to complacency in reducing emissions.
In April, the UK government launched a £50 million geoengineering program to conduct small-scale experiments. As climate threats grow, the urgency to explore all options intensifies. However, the community remains cautious about commercial involvement in these technologies without rigorous oversight.
In conclusion, while solar geoengineering may seem like a quick fix, it’s crucial to approach it carefully and consider the broader implications. For effective climate action, reducing emissions should always be the priority.
For further details on solar geoengineering, you can read the full report from the Royal Society here.
