![Title icon](https://static.semafor.com/_next/static/media/thenews@2x.f322bda2.png)
The News
Once a fringe idea, solar geoengineering — specifically, using aerosols or other physical obstacles to block out some of the sun’s light — has gained traction among some climate startups and scientists as a potential tool to fight global warming.
The idea is that it may be possible to blunt the warming effects of climate change by artificially recreating the process by which major volcanic eruptions have historically (and temporarily) cooled the Earth by blocking out sunlight with ash and other matter.
But so far, no major scientific experiments to test solar geoengineering’s real-world effects have taken place. In March, Harvard researchers canceled such an experiment, and in a paper published last week, members of the advisory committee that had counseled Harvard called for clearer frameworks to govern such experiments going forward.
SIGNALS
Potential for global ‘catastrophic consequences’
The Harvard experiment got significant pushback, particularly from the Saami Council, an organization that represents indigenous Sámi people across nine different northern countries. The council argued scientists were ignoring the “risks of catastrophic consequences” for the globe. Proponents of geoengineering tend to describe it as a temporary measure, but its effects are unproven. It’s possible that unilateral initiatives taken in one country could wind up affecting the entire planet, and international oversight is lacking, two columnists argued in Foreign Affairs. “Today’s international law regime is not sufficient to deter states from resorting to force if they feel imperiled by such a threat.”
Geoengineering could undermine other efforts to tackle climate change
Some scientists have argued that conspiracy theories about geoengineering’s harms hamper meaningful research into its potential, the BBC noted. While such experimental fixes are no “silver bullet….[they] possibly could be part of an array of solutions,” one scientist told the outlet. However, solar geoengineering has also been criticized as a “moral hazard” that undermines other ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions, The Economist wrote — like ending fossil fuel use. But such criticisms may unwittingly backfire: “The more scientists wring their hands about a moral hazard, the more the public may come to see geoengineering as the quick fix that it isn’t,” The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists wrote.
Regulation is a game of ‘whack-a-mole’
Conducting large-scale experiments to block out the sun is unlikely in the near-term, but that hasn’t prevented several geoengineering startups from springing up and apparently performing their own tests. Because there is a lack of a comprehensive framework for regulating solar geoengineering, trying to keep these efforts in check is “a bit like playing whack-a-mole around the world,” The Verge wrote. Experts fear it will only become harder to do so as climate change worsens and more people become desperate for solutions. “There’s going to be a strong desire by someone somewhere to do something… There will be a temptation to grab the throttle and push ahead,” a legal expert told NPR.