As the effects of climate change have gotten worse and harder to ignore, the argument for and against solar geoengineering has heated up. In 2021, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) planned to launch a small weather balloon into the stratosphere above northern Sweden. This very ambitious project has generated a lot of interest and vitriol. As for SCoPEx, the team’s goal was to release a tiny, measured quantity of calcite into the atmosphere. They were primarily interested in gathering some baseline data on how these particles would react. This multifaceted data collection was designed to encompass aerosol microphysics, turbulence, and atmospheric chemistry interactions.
Given the limitations of the SCoPEx experiment and its implications, hundreds of scientists from all over the world signed an open letter in January 2022. This letter, signed by nearly 250 organizations and individuals, called for a global non-use agreement and the public funding and outdoor experiments solar geoengineering. In December 2021, the European Commission raised the stakes. In the report, they urged Congress to impose a moratorium on solar geoengineering research undertaken beyond laboratory environments. This moratorium is indicative and reflective of the increasing concerns about the negative ramifications that such experimental practices can have.
Public Sentiment and Scientific Backlash
Public sentiment on solar geoengineering seems equally mixed but growing more positive with younger age groups. A 2021 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that approximately 41 percent of U.S. adults believe solar geoengineering could help mitigate global climate change effects. More than 50 percent of Generation Z and millennials approve of the idea. This represents a huge generational change in perceptions toward climate mitigation tactics.
The scientific community remains cautious. Well over a thousand researchers signed this open letter. Yet even advocates for these technologies raise alarming ethical concerns on how such technology should be deployed safely, equitably, and transparently. Shuchi Talati, an advocate for responsible research practices, stated, “I don’t want to have this conversation. This is where we are.” Her comments really highlighted the importance of working through these multifaceted issues before they go into widespread deployment.
Talati added that it’s essential to set clear research standards — standards that are in the public eye and publicly understood. You really need to have some very clear expectations of what this body of researchers is going to do. The public needs to be assured these norms will be honored as well. This points to an urgent need for governance frameworks that will help manage the potential risks solar geoengineering could pose.
The Role of Government and Research Institutions
A constantly changing landscape of solar geoengineering research is made all the more opaque by possible changes in funding practices. Reports indicate that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) may reprogram the solar geoengineering research funds. It’s likely that this money would end up in the Pentagon’s budget. On a public health level, this decision brings up troubling questions about transparency in research findings. We have found that military funding usually comes with stricter restrictions and less public visibility.
Needless to say, states are moving fast in response to these changes. In fact, over 16 states have already introduced bills to prohibit solar geoengineering by the end of the first quarter of 2025. Talati observed the flurry of legislation introduced recently, “It’s incredible that’s it’s taken off in this way in so many states. I think it will really affect how political parties of all sorts respond to solar geoengineering.
The challenge of governing solar geoengineering lies in the tension between fostering innovation and exercising caution. As experts such as David Keith have observed, the conversation on these technologies is frequently framed in an unnecessarily black and white fashion. “We continue to miss our target, so the goal posts keep moving,” he said. He underscored the importance of an open dialogue rooted in science, not conjecture or bitterly divided viewpoints.
Ethical Implications and Future Considerations
As debates over solar geoengineering continue, ethics should be the first thing on everyone’s minds. Without critical awareness, interventions may intensify current injustices or even generate new ones. This reality creates hard choices for researchers and policy-makers. Talati articulated this sentiment succinctly: “Is it a thing we have to start thinking about? Will it exacerbate injustices? Will it create new ones? I don’t know the answers to those questions.”
The implications of solar geoengineering are far-reaching and go beyond scientific inquiry. They implicate social justice issues and environmental ethics. While proponents argue that such technologies could offer solutions to climate challenges, critics caution against hasty adoption without comprehensive understanding and governance.
In December 2021, a paper that appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at performance across different regions under idealized solar geoengineering scenarios. To carry out their analysis, the researchers used computer simulations. Those innocuous sounding findings mean that for every cooling Earth’s temperatures would happen to achieve, we can expect 10 unnecessary lives saved between 2050-2080. In comparison, only one extra death would be due to air pollution and ozone layer depletion. This study highlights the challenges of balancing benefits and possible harms in climate interventions.
Leave a Reply