Daniel Ross

A drastic sci-fi idea could solve climate change — or unleash its own wave of problems

Desperate times call for desperate measures, as the saying goes. As scientists, policymakers and politicians keep one increasingly startled eye on climate change's ticking clock and the other on the ongoing, upwardly mobile trend in greenhouse gas emissions, it's no wonder possible solutions that have been long dismissed as fringe slices of science fiction are making their way into the mainstream.

Enter center stage geoengineering, a hitherto black sheep of the fight against global warming.

Geoengineering is a broadly encompassing term with a few close etymological cousins—namely climate engineering and climate change mitigation—along with a sizable stable of associated technologies. Some of them, like afforestation and ocean iron fertilization, fall under the umbrella of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in that they seek to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But these are techniques that would in all likelihood shift the climate change needle relatively slowly.

In comparison, technologies under the rubric of solar radiation management (SRM) are expected to work on a much faster timescale, and as a consequence, generate arguably the greater buzz. Solar engineering is the idea that humankind artificially limits how much sunlight and heat are permitted in the atmosphere, and includes the thinning of high-level cirrus clouds to help infrared rays more easily escape upward, along with the brightening of low-level marine clouds to help reflect sunlight back into space.

The one SRM practice with perhaps the greatest political currency concerns the spraying of aerosols like sulfur dioxide into the upper layer of the atmosphere to act as a barrier against sunlight. These technologies take their inspiration from volcanic eruptions—like Pinatubo 20 years ago—which belch huge quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Once airborne, the aerosol turns into a cloud of sulfuric acid that reflects inbound solar energy, in the process cooling the planet.

The idea that such actions could be imitated in a controlled manner has bounced around for a while. For example, the right-wing think tank the American Enterprise Institute embarked upon a research program into SRM technologies back in 2008. One year later, in 2009, the UK's Royal Society released a report recommending that CDR and SRM techniques be considered possible avenues to address climate change, but only after extensive research. Recently, however, talk around geoengineering—and SRM in particular—appears to have shifted gears, even if some of it substantively sounds familiar.

In March 2021, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) released a report that advocated a multinational research program into solar geoengineering. Researchers from Harvard are seeking the green light for a potentially groundbreaking experiment to release an aerosol made from calcium carbonate into the stratosphere to see how it behaves. The project's first test flight, in Sweden, was penciled in for this June, but has been postponed until next year as a result of pushback from local Indigenous groups. In April, Rolling Stone curated a debate on solar engineering which included Harvard's David Keith, who spearheads the geoengineering project. During the debate, Keith described the process of releasing aerosols into the stratosphere as "technically pretty easy."

Easy it may be. But with august political institutions continuing to weigh in on solar engineering as a legitimate solution to global warming, perhaps the most salient question is this: Should such techniques ever be deployed?

Practical and Ethical Concerns

At the heart of the debate is the fact that currently there's simply not nearly enough known about the vast and complex set of overlapping consequences, akin to falling dominoes, that solar engineering might trigger—a yawning data gap resulting from the meager amounts of funding put toward such research thus far. "There's just not much money going into this [research, relative] to the looming possibility of actually needing to use it to avoid catastrophic climate change," said Dane Scott, director of the Center for Ethics at the University of Montana.

And while major climate models show that solar engineering certainly has the potential to reduce key climate hazards like atmospheric temperature increases, changing water accessibility and rising sea levels, with limited data available through practical field application, computer simulations of solar engineering proposals remain for the most part stalled at the conceptual stage.

With that in mind, it's no wonder many experts mirror calls by the likes of NASEM for major investments in solar engineering research. But if this research is to be conducted, these same individuals warn, it needs to be approached openly and transparently with engagement from all four corners of the global community, both developed and developing nations alike.

"It would be irresponsible not to do vigorous research on it," said Scott, about the use of stratospheric aerosols in particular. "But it would just be awful if we were to do this research in secret since it affects everybody in the world."

This brings us to the slippery ethical conundrums that SRM technologies pose, with all sorts of societal, political and environmental considerations that can often seem hard to digest. One useful way to view this debate is through the lens of moral hazard, which refers to the idea that the more protected we are from the consequences of our behavior, the riskier our behavior becomes.

In terms of SRM technologies, therefore, one fear is that any concerted approach to studying their relative viability could offer false hope to political leaders who, in turn, might redirect attention and vital resources away from other climate mitigation efforts, especially those seeking to curb greenhouse gas releases in time to reach to the 2050 "net-zero" emissions goal approved by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another fear is that any meaningful deployment of SRM technologies could act as a green light for fossil fuel companies to continue with business as usual, a scenario with all sorts of implications, including health-related impacts associated with exposure to pollutants from fossil fuel usage.

Moral hazard is a "core concern with a lot of different responses to climate change," said Holly Buck, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It's a real and pervasive concern, because we haven't seen a real commitment to climate action yet."

Solar engineering deployment also brings significant geopolitical concerns. "You always have to ask about power," said Duncan McLaren, a research fellow and professor in practice at the Lancaster Environment Center, England. "It's an unfortunate problem of the liberal Western narrative of how the world works." In other words, who wields the levers of governance and how will accountability be practiced? These are no small issues to grapple with.

One fear is that a rogue nation or two—or even a billionaire "Greenfinger," who is "a self-appointed protector of the planet" as law professor David Victor put it more than 10 years ago—could take it upon themselves to tame the sun alone. Who exactly would stop them, and under whose auspices? That leads to issues surrounding unintended consequences, post-deployment. What would happen in the event that a country or a region suffers a period of major drought for which political leaders blame the use of solar engineering? What kind of political mechanisms are in place to deal with such a scenario? Can a country then unilaterally pull the plug on the program?

Then there's the possibility—though slim—that global actors intentionally weaponize solar engineering against political enemies. "I've always been pretty skeptical that [SRM] could be effectively weaponized," said David Morrow, an academic who works on climate ethics and climate policy. The exception is marine cloud brightening, which could be "deployed regionally," he added.

At the same time, possible blueprints for governance and enforcement already exist, Morrow explained, pointing to complex structures like the global financial system, the electric grid and GPS satellite tracking systems. "Obviously, all analogies have limits," Morrow added. "One of the important limits with all the things I've just mentioned is that individuals or countries can opt out of those things—at great cost, but they could do it. That's not true for solar engineering."

Perhaps one of the most potent obstacles that proponents of SRM technologies face is the court of public opinion. Polls show the U.S. public is ambivalent, at best, toward geoengineering as a possible fix to the climate crisis. This hesitation may not be surprising within Western culture's dire warnings of the consequences of humanity's hubris, epitomized by the popular canonical ancient Greek tale of Icarus, whose waxen wings melted after he flew too near the sun. More recently, the post-apocalyptic world of the TV series "Snowpiercer" introduced us to a fictional frozen hellscape brought about by botched efforts by humans to block the sun.

According to Alan Robock, a distinguished professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, public reticence could prompt the kind of action necessary to ensure that global warming is reversed without resorting to solar engineering.

"If you tell someone in the public, 'Here's the deal, we're going to fly an airplane over your daughter's school, we're going to spray sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, and that's going to solve the global warming problem,' they might reply, 'Really, you're thinking about something that crazy? Well, maybe I should worry more about global warming than I did before.' So, it might actually work in the opposite direction," Robock said.

Daniel Ross is a journalist whose work has appeared in Truthout, the Guardian, FairWarning, Newsweek, YES! Magazine, Salon, AlterNet, Vice and a number of other publications. He is based in Los Angeles. Follow him on Twitter: @1danross.

Can we reach 100 percent renewable energy in time to avert climate catastrophe?

Ten years ago, two climate scientists, Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, published a groundbreaking article in Scientific American outlining a road map for becoming 100 percent reliant on energy generated by water, wind and sun by 2030. This was something that needed to be done “if the world has any hope of slowing climate change,” the researchers warned at the time.

Keep reading... Show less

The world’s biggest institutional user of oil is grappling with the impacts of climate change

The 150 mph winds that Hurricane Michael blasted through Tyndall Air Force Base last October left a trail of destruction, ruin and exorbitant financial loss at one of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) key military bases. The damage could have been worse. Fifty-five of Tyndall’s fleet of F-22 fighter jets had been flown to safety before the hurricane hit. Nevertheless, some of the 17 remaining F-22 jets—their combined worth a reported $5.8 billion—suffered damage, along with roughly 95 percent of the buildings.

Keep reading... Show less

Carbon Capture: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Climate Change

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report lays out a rather grim set of observations, predictions and warnings. Perhaps the biggest takeaway? That the world cannot warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C) over pre-industrial levels without significant impacts.

Keep reading... Show less

Republicans Have Denied Climate Change for Far Too Long - and It's Taking a Toll on the Military

Rich text editor, edit-body-und-0-value, press ALT 0 for help.

A rock seawall protecting the Air Force’s Cape Lisburne Long Range Radar Station on Alaska northeastern coast is under increasing duress from extreme weather patterns affecting Arctic sea ice—nearly $50 million has been spent replacing vulnerable parts of the wall already.

Keep reading... Show less

Medicine Residue Is Everywhere in Our Rivers and Lakes - and Fish Are Behaving Strangely

For all the well-documented sources of environmental pollution—think chemical manufacturers, energy plants, mining operations and agricultural processes—there’s another major source of contamination that continues to get short shrift by those charged with protecting the nation’s waterways and the public’s health: Pharmaceuticals and personal care products.

Keep reading... Show less

How the U.S. Military Played a Role in America's Obesity Crisis

There’s no avoiding the debris of modern living on a trip to your local grocery store—rows and rows of foods and products that, if not ready to eat, are designed and packaged to be prepared quickly and to last an age. Makes sense, right? Busy lives require time-saving measures.

Keep reading... Show less

Trump Might Make You Pay $70 to See the Grand Canyon

As summer approaches and millions gear up for an anticipated pilgrimage to America's national parks, many travelers are holding their breath in anticipation of a possible fee hike at 17 of the nation’s most visited and profitable parks.

Keep reading... Show less

Is Something Fishy Going on Between the University of Florida and the Agrichemical Industry? Consumers Have a Right to Know

The food and agrichemical industries have over decades funneled billions of research dollars into the nation's universities—a relationship that has led to observable bias in industry-funded university studies, as well as concerns that findings favorable to the sponsor’s interests are cherry-picked for public consumption. An impending court case involving the University of Florida could further lift the veil on the particulars of this dynamic.

Keep reading... Show less

Millions of Americans Are Ingesting a Chemical Some Experts Believe Has No Safe Exposure Level

Karen Deichelbohrer has lived in her home roughly three miles from Wurtsmith Air Force Base near the shores of Lake Huron, Michigan, for about 20 years. Her husband passed away two years ago. Her daughter moved out eight years before that. And Deichelbohrer, now 65, lives in the roomy four-bedroom house alone with her five cats and a dog.  

Keep reading... Show less

Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper Sued Over Misleading Diet Soda Ads

Advertising campaigns behind diet drinks from Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper have long promoted the idea that consumers are taking the healthier, more weight-conscious option when it comes to choosing their favorite sodas. Diet Coke emphasized its drink has "no sugar, no calories." Diet Pepsi tried launching its slender "skinny" can only a handful of years ago. And Diet Dr. Pepper's "Lil Sweet" mascot is no subtle nod to the product’s supposed ability to shrink those who drink it.

Keep reading... Show less

Uncovered Coca-Cola Emails Expose 3 Ways Big Food Casts Doubt on Science, Endangering Public Health

An email thread involving industry-backed food organizations and former Coca-Cola executives offers a rare window into the tactics food companies use to counter dietary warnings put forth by government health agencies when the warnings have the potential to damage the corporations' bottom lines.

Keep reading... Show less

Live Concerts Are Environmental Disasters, but Singer Jack Johnson's Shows Are Anything But

The profits generated by live concerts are not insignificant. Globally last year, gross box-office revenue exceeded $5.5 billion and attendances reached nearly 74 million. The environmental impacts from live concerts are equally as pronounced, but far less understood and appreciated.

Keep reading... Show less

Why Glitter Must Be Banned

All that glitters ain’t gold, or so the old adage goes. And when it comes to the glitter used in everyday cosmetics, specialty make-up, hair products and party paraphernalia, the negative effects on human health and the environment are indeed far from golden.

Keep reading... Show less

Peace and Quiet Is Getting Harder to Find in America's Wild Areas

Every year for the past four years, I’ve fled the endless cacophony of life in Los Angeles for the pristine quiet of the Sequoia National Forest. Rarely are two worlds more different. And yet, with each year that has passed, I’ve noticed what seems to be a growing rumble of trucks thundering through the park and the din from the thousands of yearly visitors, which left me wondering: Is life in the Sequoias getting louder?

Keep reading... Show less

6 Places Where Nestlé Is Threatening Local Communities With Its Bottled Water Plans

With much of North America still in the grips of a drought going back years, managing dwindling drinking water resources is a pressing topic. And in a year when bottled water sales in the United States are expected to exceed soda sales for the first time, Nestlé Waters—a water-for-profit poster child that dominates the bottled water industry, with multiple operations across the U.S. and Canada—is at the front lines of numerous battles being waged in local communities across North America.

Keep reading... Show less

Evidence Is Mounting That a Koch Brothers-Owned Paper Plant Is Poisoning People in Arkansas (Video)

The economic pulse of Crossett, a small town of some 5,500 people in west Arkansas, has long been measured through the paper and pulp processing plant owned by the Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific. A subsidiary of Koch Industries, Georgia-Pacific is one of the world's largest manufacturers of pulp and paper products, including paper towels (like Brawny) and toilet paper (like Angel Soft).

Keep reading... Show less

Is the U.S. Finally Ending the Toxic Practice of Burning Old Munitions in Open Pits?

By the year 2020, the U.S. is expected to have on its hands a growing stockpile of munitions nearing 1.1 million tons that are no longer considered useful to the military. As a means of disposal, these munitions, including small arms cartridges, rockets, mortars, artillery shells, tactical missiles and other wastes, have for decades been burned or detonated on large trays out in the open at military bases across the country.

Keep reading... Show less

Lax Regulatory Enforcement Leaves Thousands at Risk of Lead Poisoning in California

California's regulatory agencies have repeatedly failed in their testing, enforcement and cleanup of various lead-contaminated sites in the state, an investigation by Truthout has revealed.

Keep reading... Show less
BRAND NEW STORIES