Solar geoengineering is sparking a lot of interest as we grapple with rising greenhouse gas emissions. This approach, which includes methods like spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, aims to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight away.
However, experts warn that if we start and then suddenly stop solar geoengineering, we could face a “termination shock.” This means that temperatures could rise quickly, making it hard for both humans and wildlife to adapt. It’s a concerning thought, as this rapid change could even lead to extreme events, such as the collapse of ice sheets.
Recent research modeled the potential outcomes of ignoring climate action versus using solar geoengineering. According to Francisco Estrada from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, if we keep burning fossil fuels, we might see an average temperature increase of 4.5°C by 2100, resulting in economic losses estimated at $868 billion. In contrast, if we employ an aerosol injection strategy to limit warming to around 2.8°C, we could reduce these damages by half.
Yet, things could take a turn for the worse if we suddenly halt the aerosol injection by 2030. This might trigger a 0.6°C rise in just eight years, possibly leading to financial damages exceeding $1 trillion by the century’s end. “The message doesn’t really change,” Estrada states. Termination shock would be far more devastating than inaction.
Gernot Wagner from Columbia University notes that the risks of solar geoengineering are greater than they seem. He emphasizes that the speed of temperature changes also plays a crucial role in our overall climate risk.
Interestingly, private companies are getting involved, too. The start-up Make Sunsets has already launched over 200 balloons into the stratosphere to offset emissions. Their moves raised eyebrows, even leading to a warning about a possible geoengineering ban in Mexico. Another company, Stardust, has secured $75 million in funding to push for solar geoengineering and influence U.S. policies.
A recent survey revealed that about two-thirds of scientists believe large-scale solar radiation modification could happen this century. However, experts agree that successful implementation requires global collaboration. As the U.S. and other nations often struggle to unify on climate policy, this cooperation is crucial to avoid sudden temperature spikes.
For effective geoengineering, the likelihood of abrupt cessation needs to be extremely low. According to experts, if emission reductions are substantial, adding a bit of geoengineering might help without escalating risks. The findings highlight the governance dilemma: if we can effectively manage greenhouse gas emissions, we might not need solar geoengineering at all.
Chad Baum from Aarhus University points out that more community engagement is necessary in the research process. As climate impacts grow, he insists that we need a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved in geoengineering strategies.
The bottom line? The debate around solar geoengineering is far from straightforward. While it can offer potential solutions, the associated risks and governance challenges must be thoroughly understood.
For more details, consider checking resources like New Scientist or The Degrees Initiative.
Source link
climate change
