The Controversy Over Solar Radiation Management Research
William A. Liggett — Sep 29, 2024
Are methods to cool the earth so threatening that we must agree to not even study them? That is the argument being made by the authors of the paper: “Solar Geoengineering: The Case for an International Non-use Agreement.” Or should we develop criteria and an organized approach to studying proposals for cooling as spelled out in the paper “Research Criteria Towards an Interdisciplinary Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention Assessment?” This position, led by the climate scientists at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research) and others, is to establish a mechanism to monitor and oversee the testing of geoengineering methods.
Both sides of the controversy share the same goal of lowering Earth’s temperature and to ultimately save life on the planet. Yet they are taking opposite positions when it comes to conducting scientific research. How is it possible for such an intense debate to emerge between climate scientists?
Although several factors have been raised by both sides accounting for their positions regarding research, the central issue seems to be the level of trust in existing institutions to govern the assessment and deployment of the technology. The pro-research side assumes that rational decisions can be made and enforced to avoid problems. The anti-research side asserts that no governing body, including the United Nations, has the authority and enforcement capacity to keep bad actors from damaging the Earth’s climate and harming innocent people.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm and break records. So there is growing pressure to do something to counter global warming. Two university-based research projects have been proposed and even implemented—one by Harvard University and one by the University of Washington— but both efforts were stopped before they had a chance to collect data as intended. In both cases the stoppage was the result of pushback against geoengineering.
While the scientific study of geoengineering is being debated, one company has begun to send weather balloons filled with sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in a small-scale effort to cool the planet while charging customers a fee. The deployment was not authorized by a scientific or government body and has no instrumentation or plan to evaluate its effects on the atmosphere or the intended cooling. Such activity is an example of the “rogue” interventions that scientists on both sides of the controversy worry about.
The efforts to block research into ways of cooling Earth by injecting material into the atmosphere have significant long-term consequences. If we don’t study ways to modify the climate, we are limiting the toolkit to address climate change. A small-scale study could help to inform the computer models and provide data needed to decide whether a method is worth pursuing. It does not indicate a commitment to proceed with the deployment of the method.
The apparent intent of some blockages is to close off all efforts that aren’t aligned with the replacement of fossil fuel use with renewable sources of energy. While the goal may be admirable, the process of achieving it may require some hybrid approaches and permitting some greenhouse gases to continue to be produced. An example of this condition is the need to continue to use jet aircraft until a replacement for carbon-based fuel can be found.
So, the blockage of all geoengineering may result in the status quo continuing, which entails rising temperatures on Earth with few tools to mitigate or reverse it.
My latest novel, Panic Peak, revolves around a rogue geoengineering operation. Although fiction, it describes how geoengineering might work, for good or for bad.
Bill Liggett writes fiction that blends behavioral and earth sciences in the new literary genre “cli-fi,” or climate fiction. In Watermelon Snow, his first novel, a long-frozen virus melts from a glacier, threatening a pandemic. His second novel, Panic Peak, entails a plot to geoengineer the earth’s climate. The planned third novel in the trilogy paints a hopeful future, based on solutions to global warming.
Previous Post: A Plot not Taken
Bill, your post is so well stated regarding the opposing sides on geoengineering. Taking prudent scientific steps to test out whether geoengineering steps can mitigate climate change threats makes sense to scientists and behavioral scientists. But the lack of trust in scientists/experts is critical as you recognize. It’s important that we recall the worry that it would take 10 years to develop a usable Covid vaccine. And yet, it was done in one year, saving thousand, even millions of lives. On the other hand, no vaccine to combat HIV infection has been discovered after decades. Good scientists must be humble in the face of problems that involve many variables
I look forward to your third novel. Howard Weiss
A really interesting post, Bill, and your novel Panic Peak really illustrated this problem beautifully. Personally I worry about us putting more stuff into the atmosphere without knowing the long-term consequences (and it seems to me they’re not likely to be good), but getting to the Essential reduction of carbon emissions seems nearly impossible.
Great post and this is such an exciting, important subject for your new novel, Bill!