[ad_1]
Aclimate chaos threatens the global north and the lifestyles of the world’s richest people, we might expect elites to demand a quick exit from reliance on fossil fuels. Instead, a controversial idea comes to the fore: a solar eclipse. Proponents claim that using science fiction-like methods known as solar geoengineering, we can lower the planet’s thermostat by reducing the amount of energy reaching the atmosphere. The idea gained enough traction that wealthy philanthropists took notice and the White House funded research. There’s just one problem: it’s a recipe for disaster.
One technology proposal currently making headlines is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), with proponents claiming that releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere and bouncing sunlight back into space would reduce surface temperatures. The idea is gaining traction at a time when some argue that we should be working on a plan B because it is too late to limit global warming to 1.5°C, as agreed in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But abandoning this ambition would be a gift to carbon polluters, as International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol recently explained, and the idea that solar geoengineering could ever be a plan B is false and dangerous.
Experts have repeatedly debunked the idea that we can “control” the Earth’s thermostat. The world’s foremost authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has warned that solar geoengineering is not a credible solution. Climate models show that masking global warming by reducing sunlight could lead to major changes in atmospheric circulation and alter precipitation patterns – such as the monsoon – with particularly pronounced effects in countries that already experience more severe and frequent storms, droughts, fires and other climate . -related events.
To work, solar geoengineering technologies such as SAI would require unprecedented international cooperation. Governments would have to coordinate to get chemical-spraying planes off the ground, for example, implying that only powerful countries or military regimes can provide the necessary infrastructure. Chemical mining and manufacturing would require additional infrastructure on a large scale. And all this should be maintained for decades or longer. If the new government stopped the aerosol injection program after the regime change, it could cause a “stop shock” that caused global temperatures to rise, in line with existing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Despite this, Harvard University is ready to test SAI-related equipment in the context of a controversial research project. But this method is effectively unmanageable. That’s why hundreds of academics are calling for a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement to block public funding for the technology, ban outdoor experiments, patenting and deployment, and counter support in international forums and policy discussions.
In addition to technological and political limitations, prominent lawyers say solar geoengineering runs counter to international human rights and environmental law. If geoengineering alters weather patterns, it could violate human rights to life, health and livelihoods. Moreover, SAI could violate the legal obligation to avoid transboundary environmental damage. A technology set to affect the climate globally would also require everyone potentially affected to have a say – an impossible idea.
But if we know these schemes won’t work, are fraught with risk, can’t be tested or managed, and delay short-term climate action, why are we seeing increased momentum and support for them? Put simply, they give big polluters a get-out-of-jail-free card and allow them to patent and profit from relevant technologies and related infrastructures.
Oil and gas companies have been researching and patenting (solar and other) geoengineering technologies for decades. In fact, most solar geo-engineering models rely on the massive application of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) to address the continued production and burning of fossil fuels. CDR proponents offer carbon offsets to polluters, undermining long-term solutions and exacerbating climate emergencies. Worryingly, calls for CDR have gained momentum at this year’s COP27, which risks blowing a huge hole in the Paris Agreement.
While proponents of geoengineering often say it is in the interests of the disadvantaged Global South, the Global South isn’t buying it. In fact, most groups in the global climate movement reject solar geoengineering entirely. Indigenous communities have rallied against solar geoengineering experiments in places like Alaska and Sweden. In reality, the richest and most polluting countries (especially the United States) are researching and funding these technologies.
When the world wakes up to the reality that there is no quick fix for removing carbon from the atmosphere and replacing it with a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, solar geoengineering may gain undeserved credibility as a last resort – fraught with risk but supposedly without an alternative. We must not allow that scenario to come true.
This means that we must not allow it to be normalized through political debates, private initiatives, government proposals and research. The science is clear: we can still prevent irreversible damage to ecosystems and human rights. But the only way to avoid further climate disasters is real climate action now. We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels – and put science fiction on the shelf.
The writer is the Deputy Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law. ©Project Syndicate
[ad_2]
Source link
