Scientists sharply divided over sci-fi-like technology against climate change

Dust as the moon between the sun and the earth is shot, or sulfur dioxide balloons that explode in mid-air and reflect sunlight. Scientists are increasingly at odds over whether governments are studying this kind of solar geoengineering‘ – tinkering with nature to dim sunlight – should stimulate or prevent.

In the international debate, Dutch scientists are prominent advocates on both sides of the standoff over controversial methods of tackling climate change.

On Tuesday, environmental scientist Claudia Wieners (Utrecht University), climate doctoral candidate Iris de Vries (ETH Zurich) and Professor Herman Russchenberg (TU Delft) wrote, among others. a letter which calls on governments to financially support this type of research, in order to map the “risks and benefits” of adjusting solar radiation. International personalities in climate science have signed the letter.

The appeal goes directly against the ‘Solar Engineering Non-Use Agreement’, authored last year by Professor of Global Sustainability Policy Frank Biermann (University of Utrecht). He, and now more than 400 signatories, are calling on governments not to invest money in research into technologies that could disrupt global weather patterns, and which could provide an excuse to reduce the real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. tight.

Volcanic dust cooled Earth by half a degree

Between 1991 and 1993, the earth cooled by half a degree after the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines. The substances and gases that then blocked sunlight were one of the inspirations for decades in the search for sci-fi-like technologies to slow global warming, especially in the United States.

In recent years, discussions about these types of techniques have become increasingly fierce, now that the consequences of climate change are becoming more tangible. Extreme weather conditions such as heat waves and heavy rains are already becoming more common, and the world is heading for a warming of 2.8 degrees without additional measures, well above the Paris targets.

Where influencing solar radiation used to mainly concern scientific theoretical research, an American start-up sent an information two weeks ago actually balloons with sulfur dioxide in the air. If they explode about ten miles above Nevada, the two men behind Make Sunsets have promised, they could obscure the sunlight and thus limit global warming a little.

For ten dollars per balloon, customers could offset one ton of greenhouse gas emissions for a year. Problem: the start-up had no idea if the balloons would actually reach the stratosphere, what the exact effect would be and what risks there were, for example for the ozone layer. Mexico was so appalled by the news that in January it became the first country in the world to ban this kind of sunbeam DIY on its territory.

“Such techniques are super dangerous”

According to Biermann, the scandal shows why governments should avoid encouraging such techniques. “It’s super dangerous,” warns the professor. The reflection of sunlight as the concentration of greenhouse gases on Earth continues to rise could cause changes in weather patterns in ways humans cannot predict.

If the monsoons start behaving differently, crops could fail and communities could be disrupted. Besides these kinds of numerous practical and ethical objections, Biermann expects that countries will never come to an administrative agreement on these kinds of cross-border techniques. “An even bigger objection is that the hope of these kinds of technologies may delay the effectiveness of climate policy,” says Biermann.

According to him, some studies promise that the influence of the sun’s rays could eventually become a cheaper way to fight climate change than to reduce emissions. This could play into the hands of oil companies or countries like Saudi Arabia, which could see a way out of this science fiction to keep pumping oil as long as they send balloons into the air. Companies are now also integrating into their climate plans techniques for extracting CO2 from the air which are not yet sufficiently developed.

Never hinder research

But proponents of solar geoengineering research find Biermann’s arguments too short-sighted. Doctoral student De Vries is also highly critical of the American start-up’s approach and commercial dynamics, and hopes that countries will never need solar geoengineering. “But the fact that you prefer not to use this technique shouldn’t be a reason not to research it.” Because how can you know if a technology is indeed dangerous for the weather if you never research it or even want to thwart research?

De Vries thinks it is plausible that climate change will spiral so out of control in the coming decades that some countries will resort to this kind of radical technology anyway and, for example, send sulfur balloons into the air. “Then you want research into how it can affect weather patterns, what the biggest dangers are, and what you absolutely shouldn’t do.”

She also points out that there are less risky methods of influencing solar radiation than the sulfur method. For example, spraying sea water vapor with ships to make clouds whiter and therefore reflect sunlight better using sea salt. “So you don’t bring anything outside into the atmosphere.” A sort of investigative censorship, which Biermann is aiming for, she says, yields nothing positive.

Professor Biermann, on the other hand, is hesitant to conduct research on things you don’t actually want to use because of the potential risks. “Physicists often think they have influence over what happens with their research, but that’s an illusion.” It refers to agreements countries have made not to develop chemical or biological weapons because it is too dangerous.

Suppose the Netherlands develop methods for sulfur balloons with dangerous consequences for other countries, he means. So what’s stopping Vladimir Putin from building them anyway and sending them into the air so he can keep pumping oil for money? “It’s hypothetical, but not entirely unrealistic.” According to him, a country like Russia pays little attention to the environment and the climate.

Scientists are diametrically opposed

It is striking how diametrically opposed climatologists are on this subject. Climate ethics professor Behnam Taebi does not find such a “pro-versus approach” fruitful for a debate, “because the nuances are overlooked”.

Many scientists don’t want to choose sides either. “It’s a very difficult subject,” admits climatologist Detlef van Vuuren of Utrecht University. “Scientists agree solar radiation management can never be a final solution. Partly because ocean acidification will continue if greenhouse gas concentrations do not decline; so the emissions have to go to zero anyway.

At the same time, it seems “weird” to him that he deliberately does not research, especially in technologies where there is a chance that humanity will need it in the future as part of the solution. According to him, countries should quickly reach international political agreements on how they deal with these types of technologies, in case some countries start investing in this area in the future. “At the moment, there are hardly any agreements on this.”

Van Vuuren does not sign either letter. “At the moment, sunburst modification is not an option. But ten years ago we also thought differently about removing CO2 from the air. It’s just necessary now, whether we like it or not. No. It doesn’t automatically mean he’ll suddenly be in favor of adjusting solar radiation in ten years, because that’s a lot more risky than removing CO2. “It’s less risky. But with the reflection sunlight, you want to resolve one disturbance in the system with another disturbance in the system.”

The Dutch government does not yet have a concrete policy on whether or not to support this type of technology. The Science Council for Government Policy (WRR) does not mention solar geoengineering in its latest climate report, which advises on climate costs to government. There is, however, a research project on long-term issues of climate policy. According to a spokesperson, it is “quite possible that solar geoengineering will have its place. However, the Council “has not yet taken a position”.

When governments and public institutions are unwilling to support this type of research, scientists are dependent on corporations and philanthropists. One of the most prominent proponents of the sunburst’s potential influence is tech billionaire Bill Gates, who co-funded earlier research at Harvard University to inject particles into the stratosphere. He is probably happy with the Dutch call for governments to also provide money.

Read also:

Why is Porsche building a ‘climate-friendly’ fuel plant in Chile?

Automaker Porsche is building a “climate-friendly” fuel plant in Chile. A sneaky trick to keep making gas-powered cars, say environmental organizations. But experts see serious climate opportunities for e-fuels.

In the 1970s, oil companies invested in green energy, then in climate deniers. Where is the cover from?

It’s a historical puzzle: why the oil bosses first invested big money in solar panels and then spread nonsense about the climate. An American historian is determined to solve this puzzle.