Large-scale geoengineering — deliberate interventions to alter the earth’s climate — will be taking place in the near future. What was once the province of science fiction will soon become part of the official strategies to fight climate change.
Many geoengineering techniques were considered “taboo” until recently by scientists, who feared devastating unintended consequences. These include “dumping chemicals in the ocean” and “injecting reflective particles in the sky.” However, growing alarm at the “climate crisis” is causing scientists, with private and government support, to conduct pilot experiments worldwide.
The Wall Street Journal reports: “The shift reflects growing concern that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions aren’t moving fast enough to prevent the destructive effects of heat waves, storms and floods made worse by climate change. According to scientists and business leaders involved in the projects, geoengineering isn’t a substitute for reducing emissions. Rather, it is a way to slow climate warming… while buying time to switch to a carbon-free economy.”
IT’S HAPPENING.
The story reveals that at least three geoengineering experiments are currently taking place around the world. In Australia, researchers from Southern Cross University are releasing a brine mixture into the sky to create larger, brighter clouds that will reflect more sunlight, reducing local temperatures. The Australian government, universities, and conservation organizations are funding the project.
Israeli startup Stardust Solutions — with $15 million in private backing — is testing a delivery system to disperse reflective particles at high altitudes, again to reduce solar radiation. The startup is currently testing the system indoors but will move to outdoor tests in the “next few months.”
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute plans to add 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean off Martha’s Vineyard. They aim to produce a carbon sink that draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into the sea. This project has a combination of U.S. government and private funding. The release of the chemical will require further approval from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Geoengineering made headlines last year when California startup Make Sunsets launched weather balloons containing sulfur dioxide to gauge their effectiveness at releasing the chemical at high altitudes. The revelation of the launches, conducted in Mexico without government approval, drew significant criticism from the scientific community. Mexico’s government announced it would prevent further launches within its territory.
Make Sunsets CEO Luke Eisen was unrepentant. He said the company would continue to release as much sulfur into the atmosphere as “we can get customers to pay us” to release. The startup offers a “cooling credit” system, where customers can pay $10 for a gram of sulfur dioxide to be used as a payload in future balloon launches.
CHANGING ATTITUDES.
Since then, official attitudes towards geoengineering within the scientific community and government have become distinctly more sanguine. A former MIT director’s recent essay in The New York Times urged governments to focus on geoengineering because carbon-reduction schemes have failed.
Around the same time, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres claimed the era of global warming was over and that a new era of “global boiling” had begun. “Climate change is here,” he said. “It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning. It is still possible to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C [i.e. above pre-industrial levels] and avoid the very worst of climate change. But only with dramatic, immediate climate action.”
The U.S. government’s official stance on geoengineering has also noticeably softened. In 2015, the National Academy of Sciences noted that “reductions in emissions” should take precedence over geoengineering due to unknown risks. This stance was reiterated in two more reports, one in 2021 and the other in 2022. Then, last year, the U.S. government issued guidelines for research into solar radiation management. Although they emphasized the potential for serious unknown side effects, it’s clear that the U.S. government is preparing for significant research into geoengineering, including pilot tests like the one off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard, to take place.
At this month’s UN Environmental Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, delegates will debate the merits of solar radiation management.
DANGEROUS NEW TERRITORY.
All of this is a clear sign that the “climate crisis,” or rather the “climate crisis” narrative, is entering a dangerous new phase. Rational thinking increasingly leads to alarmism and, ultimately, hysteria about impending doom. Under such conditions, the most unreasonable and ill-considered responses will seem reasonable and appropriate.
Skeptics are unlikely to be convinced by the U.S. government’s caveats on geoengineering research. Nor are they likely to be convinced by the “trust the science” reassurances from those conducting such research. There are no guarantees that the effects of small-scale interventions in pilot trials are replicable on a larger scale. But the involvement of national governments means that the efforts of a small startup like Make Sunsets, damaging enough, could potentially be dwarfed in the coming years by government-backed schemes.
Even if governments decide not to use geoengineering to fight climate change, we can be sure that environmental groups will once it becomes clear the technology “works.” The potential for disaster, albeit on a smaller scale, will remain, which is little comfort indeed.
