Climate Engineering:
The Controversial Plan B for Saving Our Planet
Have you ever felt the blistering heat of a sweltering summer day and wondered—is this the new normal? As climate change accelerates, scientists warn that extreme heatwaves may become more intense and frequent in the coming decades. This presents an ominous question: What if we can’t get global warming under control quickly enough? Some researchers have proposed a controversial backup plan called “climate engineering.” Let’s dive into this complex topic that’s generating a lot of debate.
What Exactly is Climate Engineering?
Also called geoengineering, climate engineering refers to large-scale technological interventions designed to counteract climate change. The goal is to actively cool the planet and offset the warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
Scientists are exploring ideas for hacking Earth’s climate as a last resort if our current efforts to curb emissions fail. It’s like trying to force the genie back into the bottle – a risky plan B if plan A doesn’t work out.
Climate engineering falls into two main categories:
- Solar radiation management
- Carbon dioxide removal
Let’s break these down…
Solar Radiation Management
Solar radiation management aims to turn down Earth’s thermostat by reflecting sunlight back into space. This involves deflecting some of the sun’s energy to prevent it from reaching and heating the planet’s surface.
One proposed method is injecting sulfate aerosol particles into the stratosphere, about 6-30 miles above Earth. These particles would create a global haze reflecting sunlight away from the planet, increasing the atmosphere’s reflectivity. Scientists estimate this could offset 1-4°F of warming, all for under $10 billion per year globally.
Another idea is using fleets of automated ships to spray seawater into marine clouds. This would make the clouds brighter, enabling them to reflect more sunlight.
Methods of Solar Radiation Management |
Injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere |
Spraying seawater into marine clouds with ships |
While solar radiation management may sound promising, it also carries significant risks…
Carbon Dioxide Removal
Carbon dioxide removal aims to actively extract CO2 from the air and lock it away underground or in long-term storage. This could involve:
- Planting vast forests to absorb and store carbon naturally
- Using giant CO2-sucking machines to remove it directly from the air
- Fertilizing the oceans to boost carbon-absorbing plankton
The idea is to remove enough greenhouse gas to overcome humanity’s emissions until we can transition society away from fossil fuels.
Methods of Carbon Dioxide Removal |
Planting large-scale forests |
Direct air capture machines |
Ocean fertilization to boost plankton |
Of course, radically transforming the atmosphere and oceans carries significant risks, too…
The Potentials Risks and Benefits
Climate engineering might seem brilliant in theory. But how smart is it really to mess with the global climate system?
Potential Benefits
First, the potential upsides.
- Rapidly cool the planet and buy time to move away from fossil fuels
- Lower cost than dealing with unchecked climate change
- Crucial backup plan if emissions reductions fall short
Climate engineering could serve as an emergency brake to slow global warming until we can get our act together.
Potential Risks
However, the downsides and perils are also immense.
Injecting sun-blocking sulfur particles into the stratosphere could affect weather and rainfall patterns. It may disrupt vital monsoons in Asia and Africa, damaging crop yields and food security for billions.
There’s also a risk it could thin Earth’s ozone layer, allowing more cancer-causing UV radiation to reach the surface. It’s not exactly an ideal side effect.
And if solar geoengineering efforts are ever halted, temperatures could spike rapidly. This “termination shock” could cause climate havoc.
Potential Benefits | Potential Risks |
Rapidly cool the planet and buy more time | Could disrupt weather patterns and crop yields |
Lower cost than unchecked climate change | Thinning of Earth’s protective ozone layer |
Crucial backup plan if emissions efforts fall short | Risk of “termination shock” if efforts are halted |
In short, climate engineering poses a classic slippery slope. It might help in the short run but make things far worse over the long haul.
The Debate Around Researching Climate Engineering
Given the colossal risks, there’s heated debate around whether we should even research climate engineering, let alone ever deploy it. Some argue that we already know enough about the dangers and should avoid opening Pandora’s box.
Others contend we must at least study the science, including field experiments. That way, we’re prepared if climate change ever becomes truly catastrophic.
In 2019, the U.S. government stepped towards the latter camp, approving $4 million to study climate engineering. Researchers will investigate the potentials and perils of solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal.
Supporters see this as a prudent move to boost our knowledge. However, critics argue that “small” field tests could spiral out of control. For instance, a local experiment may impact global weather in unpredictable ways.
In other words, deploying climate engineering is like letting the genie out of the bottle. Once it’s out there, can we put it back?
As climate researcher Jane Long warns:
“It’s hard to unring the bell.”
Tough questions remain about governance and ethics if we ever use these technologies, like:
- Who decides when and how geoengineering gets deployed?
- How can we ensure it’s fair and doesn’t benefit some regions over others?
- How would we know if an experiment has the intended effect versus natural climate variability?
Supporters Say | Critics Argue |
We must study climate engineering to understand the science | We already know enough about the dangers |
Field experiments are needed to prepare if climate change worsens | Even small tests could spiral out of control |
$4 million approved by the U.S. for research | “It’s hard to unring the bell” |
In short, research into climate engineering has opened a Pandora’s box of ethical issues.
Cutting Emissions Remains Key
Importantly, even proponents stress emissions cuts must remain the priority. Climate engineering should only ever be a backup plan, not a license to perpetuate the fossil fuel status quo.
The risks of large-scale climate hacking are just too unpredictable. As scientist Joshua Horton puts it:
“Solar geoengineering is the worst possible way to address climate change that we need to take seriously.”
We must slash emissions and adapt before considering something as extreme as re-engineering Earth’s atmosphere.
Reasons Emissions Cuts Must Stay #1 Priority |
Climate engineering has significant, unpredictable risks |
Could reduce motivation for emissions reductions |
It should only be a last-resort backup option |
Slashing emissions remains the safest way forward |
So in summary, emissions cuts should be plan A. Improving carbon removal technology plan B. And solar climate hacking is an emergency plan C, with extreme caution.
Conclusion: Treading Carefully with Plan B
Climate engineering is an incredibly complex topic with enticing potential and nightmarish pitfalls. It’s uncharted territory – perhaps a backup plan to save our planet or a slippery slope to climate catastrophe.
One thing is clear: emissions reductions must remain priority #1 while we carefully weigh the risks. As a species on the brink, we must exhaust every other option before manipulating the global climate system.
Yet, as a potential emergency brake, we must also understand the science in case Plan A fails. It’s a delicate balancing act with incredibly high stakes. Let’s hope our best efforts to cut emissions make debating climate engineering unnecessary. But in this unprecedented age of climate chaos, we need to have tough conversations and prepare for all scenarios. The future of human civilization may hang in the balance.