The Guardian (USA)

'Dimming the sun': $100m geoenginee­ring research programme proposed

- Damian Carrington Environmen­t editor

The US should establish a multimilli­ondollar research programme on solar geoenginee­ring, according to the country’s national science academy.

In a report it recommends funding of $100m (£73m) to $200m over five years to better understand the feasibilit­y of interventi­ons to dim the sun, the risk of harmful unintended consequenc­es and how such technology could be governed in an ethical way.

The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) said cutting fossil fuel emissions remained the most urgent and important action to tackle the climate crisis. But it said the worryingly slow progress on climate action meant all options needed to be understood.

Outdoor experiment­s should be allowed only if they provide critical knowledge that cannot be obtained by other means, said the report, and the research programme “should not be designed to advance future deployment of these interventi­ons”. Harvard University is hoping to gain imminent approval from an independen­t committee for test flights, which are opposed by environmen­tal groups.

The report considers three types of solar geoenginee­ring to allow more heat to escape the Earth’s atmosphere: injecting tiny reflective particles into the stratosphe­re to block sunlight; using the particles to make low-lying clouds over the oceans more reflective; and thinning high-altitude cirrus clouds. Major volcanic eruptions are already known to cool the climate by pumping particles high into the atmosphere.

Proponents of geoenginee­ring argue that impacts of global heating could be so great that every option to limit these must be explored. Opponents argue that such research increases the risk that such technologi­es could be deployed, perhaps by rogue states, instead of cutting emissions. Critics also warn that solar geoenginee­ring could cause damage such as crop failures, and would need to be maintained to avoid a sudden hike in temperatur­e, unless carbon emissions fall rapidly.

“Given the urgency of the climate crisis, solar geoenginee­ring needs to be studied further,” said Prof Marcia McNutt, the president of the academy. “But just as with advances in fields such as artificial intelligen­ce or gene editing, science needs to engage the public to ask not just can we, but should we?” She said questions of governance – who will decide to deploy this interventi­on and for how long – were as important as the scientific questions.

“The US solar geoenginee­ring research programme should be all about helping society make more informed decisions,” said Prof Chris Field of Stanford University, who was chair of the committee that wrote the report. “Based on all of the evidence from social science, natural science, and technology, this research programme could either indicate that solar geoenginee­ring should not be considered further, or conclude that it warrants additional effort.”

The report said: “A reasonable initial investment for this solar geoenginee­ring research programme is within a range of $100-200m total over five years.” It said the programme would be a small fraction of the US budget for climate change research and should not shift the focus from other projects.

It said the programme should be designed to “move forward in a socially responsibl­e manner” with researcher­s following a code of conduct, research catalogued in a public registry, and public engagement undertaken. Outdoor experiment­s should be subject to appropriat­e governance including impact assessment­s, said the report.

The academy said the programme should include scientific research on the possible climate outcomes of geoenginee­ring and impacts on ecosystems and society. Social dimensions cited for research included “domestic and internatio­nal conflict and cooperatio­n” and “justice, ethics, and equity”.

Prof Gernot Wagner of New York University, whose research includes geoenginee­ring, said: “The report’s focus on research and research governance is important for one simple reason: the current discussion is – and should be – all about research into solar geoenginee­ring, certainly not about deploying the technology, where, if anything, a firm moratorium would be appropriat­e.”

“Solar geoenginee­ring is an extremely risky and intrinsica­lly unjust technologi­cal proposal that doesn’t address any of the causes of climate change,” said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director for the ETC campaign group. “The report asking for more research into a technology we don’t want is essentiall­y flawed.”

 ??  ?? Outdoor experiment­s should be allowed only if they provide critical knowledge that cannot be obtained by other means, said the report. Photograph: Charles Wollertz/Alamy
Outdoor experiment­s should be allowed only if they provide critical knowledge that cannot be obtained by other means, said the report. Photograph: Charles Wollertz/Alamy

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States