https://sitn.hms.harvard.

edu/flash/2022/reversing-climate-change-with-geoengineering/

Fueled record breaking droughts, heat waves, wildfires… Human activity is driving this change in
reason of the emission of carbon dioxide and other diff greenhouse gases. Like coal, oil and natural
gas who are bruned to produce energy.
When sunlight strikes the Earths atmosphere, around 30 % of it is reflected back out to space and
70 % is incorporated into the climates nergy system.
Although the best way to slow climate change is to reduce greenhouse emissions by switching to
clean energy sources like solar, wind, water, and nuclear energy, the CO2 already in the atmosphere
can persist and continue to exert warming effects for centuries. Geoengineering, the large-scale
modification of Earth’s climate, is worth exploring because countries have been cutting their
emissions too slowly to make any near-term impact on climate change.
The greenhouse effect increases the amount of sunlight that the Earth absorbs, thereby heating the
planet. To counter this, several methods have been proposed to cool the Earth by reducing the
amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth in the first place. These light reflecting methods are
collectively called solar geoengineering. One method involves spraying tiny particles called sulfate
aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect away sunlight. Sulfate aerosols are naturally released from
volcanoes and desert dust. They are also produced by burning fossil fuels and actually offset a
portion of global warming caused by greenhouse gases. However, when released at ground level
during fossil fuel combustion, they cause dangerous levels of air pollution. Scientists are
experimenting with releasing sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere using airplanes or hot air
balloons, where the aerosols can effectively increase sunlight reflectance but are too high to cause
dangerous air pollution levels (Figure 2).

The main advantages of this method are speed, reversibility, and relative cost-effectiveness, as it is
estimated to cost $2.5 billion per year. Additionally, sulfate aerosols are relatively well studied
because they already exist in the atmosphere. However, the stratosphere contains a layer of ozone, a
gas that absorbs the most harmful types of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, and it’s possible that
sulfate aerosols could initiate ozone-destroying reactions, allowing more ultraviolet rays to reach
the Earth.

Another cooling method involves brightening clouds above the oceans. In general, darker objects
absorb light while brighter objects reflect it. Brightening clouds above oceans would cause the
clouds to reflect more light away before it can be absorbed by the dark oceans below. A cloud’s
brightness depends on the size of the water droplets that comprise it (smaller droplets have more
surface area, so they scatter more light and appear brighter). To brighten clouds, tiny seawater
aerosols could be sprayed over the oceans, so that small water droplets form around them. The
smaller the aerosols, the smaller the droplets that stick to them. However, changing the droplet size
could also affect how long the clouds last and how much water they can hold. Because clouds form
in the lowest level of the atmosphere, called the troposphere, cloud brightening has a greater risk of
affecting weather patterns than spraying sulfate aerosols high into the stratosphere.
Cloud brightening requires more investment up front to build the machines necessary to take in
seawater, convert it to tiny droplets, and spray them into the air. The machines would likely be
carried on boats to move to different parts of the ocean, but they must be able to withstand strong
ocean currents and weather conditions. The estimated cost of building a large enough fleet of these
boats is $3-5 billion, in addition to ongoing maintenance costs.

The primary knowledge gap of solar geoengineering is in how rapid sunlight changes will affect
other aspects of climate besides temperature. This can be studied in climate models, but it is
difficult to test in the real world. There is also concern that the drop in sunlight may decrease plant
growth, thereby increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 and reducing crop yields. These
methods also fail to address the root cause of climate change.
Engineering the Oceans

Another major problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere is ocean acidification, which occurs
when CO2 dissolves into the ocean and makes carbonic acid. Acids dissolve the hard shells of many
ocean animals like corals, killing them. Additionally, many animals without shells are also sensitive
to changes in acidity and can’t survive outside a narrow range. Another problem with high ocean
CO2 concentration is that it causes even more CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere. Oceans
currently absorb 25% of the CO2 that humans release into the atmosphere, but oceans are reaching
a limit and are not able to absorb as much CO2 as before.

Ocean fertilization is the best studied ocean geoengineering method and may be able to reduce both
ocean acidification and global warming. It involves supporting the growth of phytoplankton, which
convert CO2 into oxygen through photosynthesis. Microscopic phytoplankton perform around 50%
of the world’s photosynthesis. Just like fertilizer can be added to gardens to help plants grow faster,
different fertilizers can be added to oceans to help phytoplankton grow faster and consume more
CO2. Iron is the main ocean fertilizer under consideration, and this process would be much cheaper
and faster than planting more trees on land.

However, there are potential unintended consequences of this method. Overgrowth of

phytoplankton could cause algae blooms that deplete oxygen from water, thereby harming marine
animals. Additionally, although phytoplankton are crucial at the bottom of the marine food chain, a
sudden increase in their population may shift the balance of different algal species, destabilizing the
marine ecosystem. This is also more expensive, less efficient, and will take longer to set up than
aerosol methods. The cost depends on the type of nutrient (iron or other) added to the ocean, but the
average annual estimate is $450 billion.
Direct Carbon Capture

Direct carbon capture is an umbrella term for chemical reactions that filter CO2 from the air.
Existing technology can store CO2 underground or funnel it to be used to make consumer goods.
Carbon capture has fewer risks than the other methods, and it addresses the root problem of excess
atmospheric CO2, but it requires more work upfront to research different techniques and build the
necessary infrastructure than solar geoengineering.

Carbon capture methods have facilitated growth of a market for carbon trading, and several
companies, such as Carbon Engineering, Global Thermostat, CarbonCure, and Climeworks have
been working to commercialize their technologies. As opposed to the other methods, the costs of
developing these technologies will most likely fall to the private sector, whereas public investment
will be in the form of monitoring and regulation.
Geoengineering for the World

The primary challenges of geoengineering are conducting field experiments to accurately assess
potential consequences and developing international agreements to safely deploy and monitor
geoengineering technologies. If geoengineering were adopted, a combination of techniques would
be used depending on cost, regional conditions, and the climate’s response. Different methods may
have local or global effects, so regulatory policies need to be agreed upon by the international
community. Therefore, many scientists have called for the creation of regulatory agencies to advise
the United Nations and lay out plans for how geoengineering methods should be prioritized.
Geoengineering could help us reverse climate change in a more controlled manner, buying us time
to make our society more sustainable.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-geoengineering-and-how-could-it-help-
tackle-climate-change/
What is geoengineering, why is it on the agenda, and why is it controversial?

Geoengineering, also known as climate engineering, describes a range of ways to intervene on a

large scale in the Earth’s natural systems – the oceans, soils and atmosphere – to directly combat
climate change. They mostly fall into two categories: those designed to remove carbon dioxide
(CO2) from the air and those that try to limit the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface.

The significant increase in greenhouse gases

in the atmosphere due to human activity since the Industrial Revolution is enhancing the natural
greenhouse effect and causing climate change. Many scientists now say that we need to consider
geoengineering as part of a solution to avoid dangerous levels of climate change: without some
form of geoengineering it will be hard to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement

on climate change of keeping the amount of atmospheric warming well below 2°C, let alone
meeting the more ambitious targets of a 1.5°C limit.

However, geoengineering methods are not yet proven to work on a large scale, can have unintended
negative impacts on the environment, and some argue that they may discourage efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Public consent
for research or deployment may create barriers to its use and there are questions over how to govern
technologies

that have application and impacts across national boundaries.

What is the aim of Carbon Dioxide Removal and how would it work?

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), or more generally Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR), is
sometimes referred to as ‘negative emissions’ technology. Some scientists argue that to keep the
amount of atmospheric warming well below 2°C, ‘trapping’ and removing greenhouse gases may
have to be part of the solution
, with others arguing for the acceleration of these methods. Most of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s models

assume that carbon will be taken out of the atmosphere if the world is to have a good chance of
meeting the Paris Agreement target.

Some CDR methods are ‘low-tech’, such as large-scale tree-planting. Others involve technologies
that as yet have not been proven on any significant scale although some are at pilot project stage.
Approaches under consideration include: Bio-Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS),
which works by
collecting the CO2 released from burning biomass (organic materials such as wood or crops) for
power and pumping and storing it deep underground, while the biomass absorbs CO2 from the
atmosphere as it grows; removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it deep in the ocean;
biochar, where carbon waste from agriculture is ‘charred’ and buried, to lock up its carbon in the
soil; creating artificial trees that suck CO2 from the air and store it underground; and ocean
fertilisation

, adding nutrients to the ocean to encourage growth of CO2-eating plankton.

However, achieving CDR on a scale that would substantially contribute to mitigating climate
change is a massive undertaking and the methods have multiple negative side effects. For example,
ocean fertilisation may have unwanted side effects on the ecology of the oceans, while growing
biomass for BECCS, and large-scale tree-planting, would cause competition for land space
for food crops, nature conservation and other uses.
What is the aim of Solar Radiation Management and how would it work?

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) aims to bring down temperatures by reflecting a small amount
of sunlight back into space, to limit the amount that reaches the Earth’s surface.

One proposed technique is to inject minute particles of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere
(the upper atmosphere). These particles, known as aerosols, would reflect some sunlight back into
space, a process known as ‘global dimming’. This technique copies the natural cooling effect
caused by major volcanic eruptions

Another proposal is ‘marine cloud brightening’

, where the clouds that cover oceans could be made lighter in colour and more reflective by
spraying tiny droplets of seawater into them, causing them to reflect more sunlight back out into
space. This is a way of enhancing the albedo effect, the way that light surfaces reflect more heat
than dark surfaces. Another way to enhance albedo is to increase the reflectiveness of the land
surface, for example by increasing the amount of white rooftops and light-coloured pavements in
urban areas, or enhancing albedo on a larger scale by covering large areas of desert in reflective
sheets, or planting crops, shrubs and grasses that are light in colour. However, these larger-scale
interventions could cause extreme regional cooling and interfere with local weather

The possible unintended consequences of stratospheric engineering include

changes to precipitation patterns and damage to the ozone layer. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change indicates that SRM methods could substantially reduce the global temperature rise,
but that these techniques are unable to address the harmful effects of increased CO2 levels unrelated
to temperature, such as ocean acidification. Furthermore, should any of these methods be abruptly
stopped, rapid warming of the atmosphere would occur.
As global heating escalates, the US government has set out a plan to further study the controversial
and seemingly sci-fi notion of deflecting the sun’s rays before they hit Earth. But a growing group
of scientists denounces any steps towards what is known as solar geoengineering.

The White House has set into motion a five-year outline for research into “climate interventions”.
Those include methods such as sending a phalanx of planes to spray reflective particles into the
upper reaches of the atmosphere, in order to block incoming sunlight from adding to rising
temperatures.
Graphic showing a polar ice cap melting through an hourglass onto a city beneath.
Carbon bombs and Gulf Stream collapse: the most urgent climate stories of our time
Read more

The work is required by Congress. It is “not new research, but a report that highlights some of the
key knowledge gaps and recommendations of priority topics for relevant research”, said a
spokesperson for the White House’s office of science and technology policy, adding Joe Biden’s
administration wants “effective and responsible CO2 removal” as well as deep cuts to greenhouse
gas emissions.

Several American researchers, somewhat reluctantly, want to explore options to tinker with the
climate system to help restrain runaway global heating, even as they acknowledge many of the
knock-on risks aren’t fully known. “Until recently, I thought it was too risky, but slow progress on
cutting emissions has increased motivation to understand techniques at the margins like solar
geoengineering,” said Chris Field, who chaired a National Academies of Sciences report last year
that recommended at least $100m being spent researching the issue.

“I don’t think we should deploy it yet and there are still a ton of concerns, but we need to better
understand it,” Field said. “Climate change is causing widespread impacts, it’s costing lives and
wrecking economies. We are in a tough position; we are running out of time, so it’s important we
know more.”

Previous attempts at running experiments for what is known as solar radiation management (SRM)
have faced staunch opposition. Last year, an exploratory flight in Sweden of a high-altitude SRM
balloon, led by Harvard University researchers, was halted after objections by environmentalists
and Indigenous leaders.

But at least one US startup is now hoping to leap ahead with solar geoengineering.

Make Sunsets, backed by two venture capital funds, launched in October. It claims to have already
run two internal test flights for its plan to inject sulphur via balloons into the stratosphere, more than
20km above the Earth’s surface.

The venture, named after the deep red sunsets that would occur if particles were seeded into the
stratosphere, says its “shiny clouds” will “prevent catastrophic global warming” and help save
millions of lives. “Any human-caused release of carbon dioxide is geoengineering,” it argues on its
website, which asks people to buy “cooling credits” to fund its work. “We screwed up the
atmosphere, and now we have a moral obligation to fix things!”

Edward Parson, an expert in environmental law at University of California, Los Angeles, says Make
Sunsets’ claims that it could return the world to its pre-industrial temperature for just $50bn a year
are “absurd”. He explains that most researchers are wary of deploying what they consider to be a
desperate, last-ditch option.
Seven reasons to be cheerful about the Amazon in 2023 – and three to be terrified
Read more

But Parson says the risks in researching solar geoengineering have been overblown and that the US
“is probably the bold leader on this. It would be a big step forward if we have a research program.”

“In my opinion, the probability that a nation makes a serious effort on solar geoengineering over the
next 30 years is about 90%,” he adds. “As impacts get much worse and if mitigation doesn’t
massively increase, I judge it quite likely that some major nation considers its citizens are suffering
climate harms that are intolerable.”

This prospect horrifies opponents of solar geoengineering. An open letter signed by more than 380
scientists demands a global non-use agreement for SRM; it also says that growing calls for research
in this area are a “cause for alarm”, due to an unknown set of ramifications that will have varying
consequences in different parts of the world and could scramble “weather patterns, agriculture and
the provision of basic needs of food and water”.

Frank Biermann, an expert in global governance at Utrecht University, said he’s also disturbed that
solar geoengineering will create a sort of moral hazard where governments ease off efforts to cut
emissions and fossil fuel companies use it as cover to continue business as usual. Planet-heating
emissions are expected to hit a record high this year, even though they must halve this decade if the
world is to avoid dangerous levels of global heating.

This debate threatens to derail current climate policies. It’s a huge risk.

Frank Biermann, global governance expert

“I would say the majority of scientists believe this is a crazy idea for a variety of reasons,” said
Biermann, who thinks the US is an outlier because of its own large per-capita emissions and
inconsistent adherence to global agreements.

“Soon, everyone who is dependent on coal, oil and gas will jump on the solar engineering
bandwagon and say, ‘we can continue for 40 years with fossil fuels’ now. This debate threatens to
derail current climate policies. It’s a huge risk.”

Biermann likens research on blocking sunlight to the satirical movie Don’t Look Up, in which
researchers who warn of a catastrophic incoming meteoroid are sidelined in favor of an outlandish
plan to deal with it. “The only way to find out whether this works is to do it to the whole planet for
several years,” he said.

“I mean will 8 billion people sit there in our living rooms having our last meal waiting and hoping
that elite western universities got it right, that the Americans will not mess it up?”
White cumulus fluffy clouds in the sky.
Climate geoengineering must be regulated, says former WTO head
Read more

There isn’t any international governance around solar geoengineering for now. Critics fret that
unilateral action to alter the climate could spark conflict if one part of the world benefits, while
another suffers knock-on droughts or floods.

Also, the addition of aerosols would have to be continuous to maintain the cooling – any disruption,
either intentional or otherwise, would cause a sort of “termination shock”, where bottled up
warming would be unleashed in a disastrously rapid jolt.

“Termination shock terrifies me,” said Lili Fuhr, a climate and energy expert at the Center for
International Environmental Law. “This is just a gigantic gamble with the systems that sustain life
on Earth. It could be weaponized, it could be misused – imagine if, say, India and Pakistan
disagreed over one of them doing this.

“We need to do more than just emissions cuts and I wish we had a magical fix to this, but this
doesn’t turn bad ideas into good ones,” Fuhr adds.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, at the UN biodiversity conference (Cop15) youth
summit in Montreal, Canada, earlier this month
Climate goal of 1.5C is ‘gasping for breath’, says UN head
Read more

The idea of recalibrating the world’s climate to deal with heat-trapping emissions isn’t new. A group
of scientific advisers to Lyndon Johnson cautioned the US president about global heating in 1965,
musing that “deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes therefore need to be
thoroughly explored”.
Calls for intervention have grown in recent years as countries continue to dawdle over emissions
cuts and as an internationally agreed limit of 1.5C of global heating over pre-industrial times looms
into view.

There are several types of proposed geoengineering, such as pumping a mist of salt water into
clouds to make them more reflective of sunlight, or to place ice particles in high-altitude clouds to
stop them trapping so much of the heat that bounces off Earth.

The most high-profile method, though, is firing a reflective substance such as sulphur or chalk dust
from nozzles into the stratosphere, where the particles would then circulate around the world and
start deflecting the sun’s rays. David Keith, professor of applied physics and of public policy at
Harvard, estimates that around 2m tons of sulphur a year, injected via a fleet of about 100 high-
flying aircraft, would cool the planet by around 1C, around the amount it has heated up since the
Industrial Revolution.

All of this would cost several billion dollars a year according to an estimate, and provide a
relatively quick drop in temperatures. Keith argues it is more compelling than various carbon
capture technologies that can take a long time and involve complex, expensive infrastructure.
“Pretending that climate change can be solved with emissions cuts alone is a dangerous fantasy,”
Keith has stated.

We have lost so many easy paths to limit the harms of climate change that we only face worse
options.

David Keith, professor of applied physics and of public policy at Harvard University

The basic physics of doing this is well understood, Parson said, likening it to the huge eruption of
Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991, an event that expelled nearly 20m tons of sulphur
dioxide into the stratosphere and caused global temperatures to drop temporarily by about 0.5C.

“Most people didn’t notice that and there have been studies since that give us confidence it can be
done,” said Parson. “We don’t know how it should be done, yet, and the environmental aspects and
the governance remain concerns. It would be reckless to just start deploying this now but we have
lost so many easy paths to limit the harms of climate change that we only face worse options.”

Spraying sulphur into the skylight of the Earth could deplete the ozone layer, some have suggested,
and perhaps make the sky a milky white color.

Other effects on regional weather are more uncertain, to the extent one recent novel based on the
topic, The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson, depicted India embarking upon solar
geoengineering to save itself from deadly heatwaves while another, Termination Shock by Neal
Stephenson, conversely had India sabotaging a sulphur deployment system in Texas because it
interfered with its monsoon.

The debate over how much we should meddle with the climate is likely to intensify as the fallout
from global heating worsens. For now, opponents won’t back down. To Biermann, solar
geoengineering should be considered by governments as being akin to landmines or biological
weapons and blacklisted internationally.

“This is just another one on this list,” he said. “People talk about the freedom of research, but you
don’t have the freedom to sit in your back yard and develop a chemical bomb.”
This is what we're up against
Teams of lawyers from the rich and powerful trying to stop us publishing stories they don’t want
you to see.

Lobby groups with opaque funding who are determined to undermine facts about the climate
emergency and other established science.

Authoritarian states with no regard for the freedom of the press.

Bad actors spreading disinformation online to undermine democracy.

***

But we have something powerful on our side.

We’ve got you.

The Guardian is funded by readers like you in Taiwan and the only person who decides what we
publish is our editor.

If you want to join us in our mission to share independent, global journalism to the world, we’d
love to have you on side.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/cop/can-solar-geoengineering-stop-global-warming-2023-
11-02/
The idea of injecting sulphur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere is not new. The U.S. National
Academy of Sciences proposed the idea as early as 1992, while scientists have documented that
volcanic eruptions, which spew huge amounts of SO2 into the air, have a cooling effect on the
planet.
Efforts to banish SO2 as a harmful air pollutant in China and elsewhere over the last decade have
dampened its cooling effect and "unmasked" heat caused by greenhouse gases, thereby contributing
to rising global temperatures.
U.S.-based start-up Make Sunsets, one of the few commercial ventures involved in the sector,
released two weather balloons containing sulphur dioxide in Mexico last year, prompting the
Mexican government to ban the activity in January.
Company founder Luke Iseman told Reuters that it was more "straightforward" to start projects in
the United States and 30 launches had already taken place, funded by selling "cooling credits" to
customers.
But apart from Make Sunsets, only a small number of other research projects
, opens new tab have been conducted so far, including the launch of a high-altitude weather balloon
in southeast England in 2022 to test the viability of aerosol injection equipment.
Some other projects have been cancelled as a result of public opposition, including a Harvard
University and Swedish Space Corporation venture in 2021.
Research has been conducted into other potentially less dangerous SRM technologies, including
marine cloud brightening, which involves the spraying of seawater from ships to make clouds more
reflective.
While these methods were less intrusive and less potentially damaging than stratospheric aerosol
injection, they could prove more expensive and too energy-intensive, said Benjamin Sovacool,
Professor of Earth and Environment at Boston University, who has studied their potential
deployment at the Great Barrier Reef.
WHAT ARE CRITICS OF SRM WORRIED ABOUT?
Dozens of scientists are calling for "a comprehensive international assessment
, opens new tab" into the use of SRM in order to understand the risks involved and the regulations
that might be required to deploy the technologies on a wider scale.
They said in a letter published in February that it was unlikely that carbon emissions could be
reduced or removed quickly enough to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius and that
SRM interventions could be made available when necessary to avert climate tipping points.
Opponents of the method say that while the injection of sulphate aerosols might cool the planet, the
side effects could prove even more destructive. One group of 60 scientists launched a global
initiative
, opens new tab last year aimed at persuading governments to ban outdoor solar geoengineering
experiments.
The group warned that the risks of SRM were too great and that it could impact weather patterns,
agriculture, and "the provision of basic needs of food and water".
Critics point to models that show SRM could disrupt monsoons and cause droughts in Africa and
Asia. Others say it could also slow the recovery of the ozone layer or lead to a dangerous spike in
acid rain.
The technology could even be weaponised by "rogue states" or unscrupulous private companies and
create new geopolitical and security threats, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
warned in a report
, opens new tab published this year.
Opponents also worry the technology could serve as an excuse to delay the shift towards net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions. Crucially, even if SRM interventions successfully keep temperatures
down, they will not fix other consequences of rising CO2 levels, like ocean acidification.
"It is important people understand that SRM technologies ... do not solve the climate crisis because
they do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor reverse the impacts of climate change," said
Andrea Hinwood, the UNEP's chief scientist.
Its impact will also only be short term, raising the possibility that countries would be forced to
deploy SRM for centuries.
"Once you've committed to it, you've got to keep doing it," said Laura Wilcox, a climate expert at
Britain's University of Exeter. "If you stop, then you're going to see all of that warming that you've
missed, essentially on climate timescales overnight. So it's a dangerous game."

Forbes
Innovation
Sustainability
Is Geoengineering The Answer To The Global Climate Crisis?
Nils Rokke
Contributor
I write about the global energy transition and net-zero emissions.
0
Dec 18, 2023,05:09am EST

Blue and orange sunset sky with rays of sun. Natural landscape for background.

Geoengineering, particularly with the intent of cooling the planet, involves large-scale ... [+]getty

Engineering our way to a livable planet is a challenge we can no longer afford to ignore. The
climate crisis, increasingly visible to all, has reached a critical juncture.

In the immediate aftermath of the COP28 in Dubai and the agreement struck between the world’s
countries, we see the call for more forceful action. But is this going to be enough and rapid enough?
We are heading towards the warmest year on record, with the past 12 months believed to be the
hottest in 125,000 years. These staggering figures surpass even what scientists, including those at
the IPCC, predicted, indicating that our planet is warming at a faster rate than anticipated.

This alarming trend raises a crucial question: controversial though it is, is geoengineering a solution
we actually need?
Why The World Is Warming

PROMOTED

Science proves that the rapid increase in global temperatures is a direct consequence of human
activities that have significantly raised CO2 levels in the atmosphere. From the pre-industrial level
of 280 ppm, a figure that was maintained across thousands of years, we've now reached around 420
ppm.
This dramatic increase in CO2 concentration is a primary driver of the current energy imbalance on
Earth. Greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, including water vapor, CO2, and methane, have
increased the amount of solar energy trapped on Earth, leading to global warming.
Most of this excess heat is absorbed by the oceans, but even if we halted all emissions today, the
effects of past emissions, heating of the oceans, and the long-lived nature of CO2 in the atmosphere
would continue to impact our climate for years to come.
The issue of energy imbalance is further complicated by recent changes in environmental policies,
specifically the reduction of Sulphur emissions from ships and industrial activities.

While these measures have had positive effects on human health and reduced acid rain, they've also
inadvertently accelerated global warming. Sulphur dioxide in the stratosphere plays a crucial role in
cooling the planet by reflecting solar radiation. How much this accounts for is still under discussion
but with its reduction, more solar energy is reaching the Earth's surface, exacerbating the warming
effect.
Recent articles led by James Hansen point out that the climate sensitivity (how much warming will
be caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide) is more likely to be 4.8 degrees Celsius rather than 3.0
degrees Celsius, which is the mean value used by the IPCC, due to the masking effect of Sulphur
containing aerosols and the reflection of solar radiation, i.e. aerosol climate forcing and cloud
feedbacks. This is still an issue of controversy as critics to Hansen’s work point out that he has used
paleoclimate data in a simplistic way.

But what if Hansen is right? It would mean we are targeting well above two degrees warming with
detrimental consequences and thus we need to have a robust response to accelerated warming and
contentious solutions which we know will work but where the side effects are unknown or not well
thought through.
The Potential Role of Geoengineering

This brings us to the controversial yet potentially essential role of geoengineering in addressing
climate change.

Geoengineering, particularly with the intent of cooling the planet, involves large-scale interventions
in the Earth's climate system. In fact, it could be argued that we are already conducting the largest
ever geoengineering experiment, pumping billions of tons of greenhouses gases into the atmosphere
and seeing an incredible effect. The world is warming, fast.

Geoengineering techniques under consideration range from spreading Sulphur oxides in the
stratosphere to reflecting more sunlight back into space by mirrors, or from sea water droplets
spread into the atmosphere to increased albedo effect measures to mention just a few potential
programs.

While these methods could provide a rapid response to rising temperatures, they are not without
significant drawbacks and ethical considerations. For example, weather patterns can be changed to
the point where it is severely detrimental to one or more countries. Many such issues stand in the
way, but geoengineering is still a tool that shouldn’t be dismissed.
Geoengineering In Addition To The Energy Transition

Geoengineering must be seen as a supplement to, not a replacement for, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and transitioning to green energy.

These interventions, though they may work quickly and be cost-effective, do not address the root
cause of the problem: the high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, they raise new
concerns, such as the continued acidification of oceans and potential unknown ecological impacts.

The debate around geoengineering is reminiscent of the early discussions about climate adaptation.
Initially, there was resistance to focusing on adaptation strategies, with many arguing that it was
better to address the root cause of climate change rather than its symptoms.

However, as the climate crisis has intensified, adaptation measures have become an essential part of
government policies worldwide. Similarly, while geoengineering should not detract from efforts to
reduce emissions and remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, it might become a necessary
tool to prevent temperature increases beyond two degrees Celsius.

As we explore these options, we face the challenge of creating viable business models for carbon
capture and storage (CCS) and other removal technologies.

Despite progress in policy and technology, investment in geoengineering research and

implementation remains insufficient compared to the scale of the problem. Our economy often
demands a business model for every solution, but in the case of geoengineering, the primary
motivation is the survival and well-being of our planet and its inhabitants.
Proceed Now, But With Caution

The need for immediate and decisive action has never been clearer. The solutions we choose today
will shape the future of our planet.

Geoengineering, controversial as it may be, could be a crucial part of our strategy to combat climate
change. However, it must be approached with caution, rigorous research, and a clear understanding
of its potential impacts.

Only by combining this approach with sustained efforts to reduce emissions and remove legacy
greenhouse gases can we hope to address the global climate crisis effectively. The time to act is
now, and every step we take can make a difference in steering our planet towards a more sustainable
future.

When US startup Make Sunsets released two weather balloons into the skies above Mexico’s Baja
California peninsula last year, it kicked up a fierce debate about one of the world’s most
controversial climate solutions.
The plan was for the balloons, filled with helium and a small amount of sulfur dioxide, to float high
into the stratosphere. There they would burst, dispersing their load of sun-reflecting sulfur dioxide
particles and cool the Earth, just a tiny bit.

Some dismissed it as a stunt. It is not clear if any particles were actually released or even if the
balloons made it to the stratosphere. But Make Sunsets’ experiment is significant for crossing a
threshold when it comes to a hotly-debated climate solution: solar geoengineering.

To its supporters, solar geoengineering is a fix we cannot ignore as the world hurtles toward climate
disaster. For critics, it is a technology so dangerous we shouldn’t even research it
What is solar geoengineering?

At its simplest, solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management, is an attempt to
bring down the planet’s temperature by reflecting sunlight away or allowing more heat to escape
into space.

There are three main techniques:

Marine cloud brightening involves trying to make the low clouds over the ocean more reflective by
spraying them with sea salt.

Cirrus cloud thinning targets wispy clouds higher up in the atmosphere, seeding them with aerosol
particles in an attempt to thin them, so they trap less heat.

The most-researched method, however, is stratospheric aerosol injection. It involves spraying

aerosols – such as sulfur dioxide particles – into the stratosphere, more than 12 miles above the
Earth’s surface, to reflect sunlight back into space. It could be done with balloons or specialized
airplanes able to fly at high altitude.
he idea takes its cue from volcanoes. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, the
sulfur dioxide it expelled high into the atmosphere had the effect of temporarily cooling the planet
by 0.5 degrees Celsius (nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit).
Why is solar geoengineering such a hot topic?

The idea has been around since the 1960s, but it’s getting more attention because progress to tackle
climate change is so far off-pace.

The world is on track to pass critical warming thresholds, beyond which the chances of extreme
flooding, drought, wildfires and food shortages increase dramatically.

Scientists have even gone as far as to propose blowing moon dust toward the Earth to act as a sun
shield, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet.

“I wish there was no geoengineering!” Luke Iseman, the founder of Make Sunsets told CNN in an
email. But “there are no other realistic options to stay below 2 [degrees Celsius],” he said.

While pretty much no one is claiming solar geoengineering could replace planet-warming pollution
cuts and solve climate change, supporters argue it could have a big planetary cooling effect for a
relatively small price tag. A 2018 Harvard study estimated it would cost around $2.25 billion a year
over a 15-year period.
The world needs to cut emissions, “no question,” David Keith, professor of applied physics and
public policy, at Harvard University told CNN. But it doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore other
climate solutions, he added.
“I’m not saying we have to do solar geoengineering, but I think it’s worth considering all the tools,”
he said.

Chris Field, director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, told CNN there are good
reasons to be skeptical of solar geoengineering. But, he said, if it “could provide a path for
decreasing the impacts of climate change on millions of the world’s most vulnerable people (and on
ecosystems), we have a responsibility to explore the opportunities, as well as the risks.”

For some of the most at-risk countries, including low-lying island nations, climate change already
threatens their existence. A 2019 survey of more than 700 climate experts found those who expected
severe climate damage in their own countries were more supportive of solar geoengineering.
Why is it so controversial?

In the eyes of its opponents, the technology could open the door to an almost infinite number of
potential negative consequences.

“Just because we’re desperate doesn’t suddenly make solar geoengineering a good idea, because the
risks are so immense,” Lili Fuhr, from the Center for International Environmental Law, told CNN.

There are fears fiddling with the planet’s thermostat could alter rainfall patterns and shift monsoons,
with potentially devastating consequences for crops.

Effects could vary across regions, with some areas reaping benefits while others are harmed,
increasing the chance of conflict.

“When things go wrong, it is usually the poor people that suffer the most,” said Chukwumerije
Okereke, professor of global climate and environmental governance at Alex Ekwueme Federal
University in Nigeria.

People are already suggesting African countries as a testing ground for the technologies, Okereke
said. “It is a distraction from the sort of policies and help that should be coming to Africa.”
Solar geoengineering could also damage the ozone layer, which shields Earth from harmful
ultraviolet rays, and is currently on track to repair itself after the success of a ban on ozone-
depleting chemicals.

Then there are the difficulties of implementation.

As the aerosol particles do not tend to remain in the atmosphere for more than about a year, solar
geoengineering would have to be continuously maintained. If halted, there is a risk of “termination
shock,” unleashing all the pent-up warming “waiting in the wings, ready to slap the Earth in the
face,” Raymond Pierrehumbert, professor of physics at Oxford University, told CNN.

It would also require unprecedented international cooperation, Frank Biermann, professor of global
sustainability governance at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, told CNN. “It would mean that
countries have to collaborate forever,” he said, including those currently at war.

One of the biggest criticisms of solar geoengineering is it could be grasped by polluters as a way to
continue polluting, and by governments as a distraction from policies to reduce planet-heating
pollution.
In 2021, a group of nearly 400 scientists called for an “international non-use agreement,” a
commitment to restrict the development of solar geoengineering “before it is too late.”

Governments should consider solar geoengineering in the same way they do chemical weapons,
biological weapons, nuclear testing and Arctic mining, Biermann said.
What’s the progress so far?

There has been a flurry of interest in the technology, especially in the US.

In 2019, Congress allocated $4 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for
stratospheric research, some of which was for solar geoengineering. And last year, the Biden
administration announced a five-year research plan to explore the concept.

A 2021 report from the National Academy of Sciences called for the US to allocate up to $200
million to a research program to better understand solar geoengineering, including its feasibility,
impacts on society and the environment, and public perceptions.

Research organizations are also providing funding. In February, the UK-based Degrees Initiative
announced $900,000 for research in countries across Africa, Asia and South America to look at how
the technology could affect the Global South.

So far, outdoor experiments have been difficult to get off the ground and have faced heavy
resistance.

An attempt by Harvard University researchers to test a high-altitude balloon in Arctic Sweden in

2021 was abandoned after an outcry from local Indigenous Sami people. A letter on behalf of the
Sami Council said solar geoengineering “entails risks of catastrophic consequences.”

And following Make Sunset’s balloon release, the Mexican government announced in January it
would ban solar geoengineering experiments.

As the world heats up and solar geoengineering shifts from sci-fi to mainstream, tussles between
those who say there is an obligation to research it as a potential last-chance solution and those
convinced it is the path to catastrophe are only likely to increase.

Critics like Biermann, however, remain unwavering in their opposition.

“It’s very risky. It cannot be governed. It’s unethical,” he said. “And it is one of the biggest dangers
in the current climate policies.”
Energy is at the heart of the climate challenge – and key to the solution.

A large chunk of the greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat are generated
through energy production, by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat.

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change,
accounting for over 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all
carbon dioxide emissions.

The science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by
almost half by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050.
To achieve this, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and invest in alternative sources of
energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable.

Renewable energy sources – which are available in abundance all around us, provided by the sun,
wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth – are replenished by nature and emit little to no
greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.

Fossil fuels still account for more than 80 percent of global energy production, but cleaner sources
of energy are gaining ground. About 29 percent of electricity currently comes from renewable
sources.

Here are five reasons why accelerating the transition to clean energy is the pathway to a healthy,
livable planet today and for generations to come.
1. Renewable energy sources are all around us

About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels --
that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other countries, which makes
them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises.

In contrast, renewable energy sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be
fully harnessed. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of
the world’s electricity can and should come from renewable energy by 2050.

Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing countries to diversify their economies
and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil fuels, while driving inclusive
economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation.

2. Renewable energy is cheaper

Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today. Prices for
renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power fell by
85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent
and 48 percent respectively.

Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including to low- and middle-
income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from. With
falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the coming years to
be provided by low-carbon sources.

Cheap electricity from renewable sources could provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity
supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the power sector by 2050, massively cutting
carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.

Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-
pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness
actually improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International
Energy Agency (IEA).

3. Renewable energy is healthier

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99 percent of people in the world
breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and more than 13 million deaths
around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes, including air pollution.

The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate mainly from the
burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in health and
economic costs, about $8 billion a day.

Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind and solar, thus helps address not only climate
change but also air pollution and health.

4. Renewable energy creates jobs

Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the fossil fuel
industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an overall
increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by
2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9
million jobs.

In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for instance to
take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in
innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs
could be created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030.

Ensuring a just transition, placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy
transition, will be paramount to make sure no one is left behind.

5. Renewable energy makes economic sense

About $7 trillion was spent on subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2022, including through
explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health and environmental damages that were not priced into the
cost of fossil fuels.

In comparison, about $4 trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 –
including investments in technology and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by
2050.

The upfront cost can be daunting for many countries with limited resources, and many will need
financial and technical support to make the transition. But investments in renewable energy will pay
off. The reduction of pollution and climate impacts alone could save the world up to $4.2 trillion per
year by 2030.

Moreover, efficient, reliable renewable technologies can create a system less prone to market
shocks and improve resilience and energy security by diversifying power supply options.

Learn more about how many communities and countries are realizing the economic, societal, and
environmental benefits of renewable energy.
Réduire les émissions pourrait ne pas suffire à éviter une catastrophe climatique. Un certain nombre
de climatologues, philanthropes et start-ups pensent que nous devons également réparer les
dommages déjà causés. La géo-ingénierie (c’est-à-dire la manipulation climatique à grande échelle
en déviant le rayonnement solaire ou en capturant le dioxyde de carbone dans l’atmosphère)
pourrait être un outil crucial pour y parvenir. Selon les experts, elle pourrait s’avérer aussi flexible
qu’un thermostat domestique.

La géo-ingénierie du carbone est la plus développée des deux approches. La démarche la plus
simple est le boisement, qui consiste à planter de grandes quantités d’arbres et à tirer profit de leur
pouvoir de photosynthèse pour absorber le CO2. Pour avoir un impact considérable, cependant, le
boisement nécessite de vastes étendues de terre, ce qui le rend à la fois coûteux et peu pratique.

Une approche plus efficace est le captage direct du CO2 dans l’air (DAC, «Direct Air Capture»),
qui utilise des systèmes de filtration pour éliminer le CO2 dans l’air. Une entreprise suisse,
Climeworks, a conçu de petits réacteurs modulaires qui améliorent l’efficacité énergétique du
procédé; ils nécessitent des températures moins élevées, tout en permettant également la
réutilisation de la chaleur résiduelle dans les processus industriels. Si la technologie DAC est encore
coûteuse, elle est 400 fois plus efficace en termes d’espace que le boisement, selon Christoph
Gebald, directeur de Climeworks. La technique est connue depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale; le
défi actuel, selon Christoph Gebald, est de «la rendre économique et de la développer à grande
échelle».

Des sites de petite taille et une technologie modulaire permettent à Climeworks de choisir ses
emplacements en fonction de facteurs tels que la disponibilité d’énergie renouvelable et de services
publics peu coûteux. «La concentration de CO2 est sensiblement égale dans toute l’atmosphère»,
explique Christoph Gebald. «En sept jours, une molécule de CO2 parcourt le monde entier. Nous
pouvons la capturer n’importe où. Nous allons là où se trouve le stockage [de CO2], afin de ne pas
devoir transporter le CO2, et là où de l’électricité renouvelable bon marché est disponible.»

D’autres élaborent des solutions de stockage intelligentes. Carbfix, une entreprise islandaise, a mis
au point une technique permettant de minéraliser le CO2 sous forme de pierre, qui peut être stockée
facilement et à moindre coût dans le sous-sol. Elle diffère ainsi de la séquestration conventionnelle
du CO2, qui consiste à pomper le CO2 dans des formations géologiques telles que des gisements
pétroliers et gaziers épuisés. Cette approche peut comporter des problèmes, tels que les fuites et la
contamination géochimique, et nécessite donc une surveillance continue.

«Il n’est pas nécessaire de mener des campagnes de surveillance des décennies plus tard [comme
c’est le cas avec la séquestration conventionnelle]», explique Edda Sif Aradóttir, directeur général
de Carbfix. «Nous considérons que c’est une façon très élégante de réduire les émissions et de
récupérer le CO2 déjà libéré dans l’atmosphère.» Carbfix peut stocker 100 kg de CO2 dans
seulement 42 mètres cubes de roche. L’entreprise collabore actuellement avec Climeworks dans le
cadre d’un projet appelé Orca, un site de démonstration commerciale permettant de capturer 4 000
tonnes de CO2 chaque année.
Refléter l'énergie

La géo-ingénierie solaire est une approche plus radicale (et controversée) de l’ingénierie climatique;
cette solution encore théorique permettrait de modifier la température de la Terre en réfléchissant la
chaleur du soleil.

Des innovations semblables existent déjà à très petite échelle, à l’image des surfaces à albédo élevé,
conçues pour réfléchir le rayonnement thermique, qui équipent les bâtiments dans les climats
chauds. Cependant, la portée de la géo-ingénierie solaire peut être bien plus vaste.
Selon Peter Irvine, maître de conférences spécialiste du changement climatique à la faculté
University College London, l’approche la plus connue est la géo-ingénierie des aérosols
stratosphériques, qui consiste à pulvériser de grandes quantités de particules inorganiques telles que
le dioxyde de soufre dans les couches supérieures de l’atmosphère.

Dispersées à des altitudes supérieures à 20 km, ces particules formeraient contre la lumière solaire
entrante une barrière semblable aux effets des éruptions volcaniques, qui projettent des aérosols de
soufre dans la stratosphère. En réagissant pour former de l’acide sulfurique, les particules se
mélangeraient à l’eau pour former de minuscules gouttelettes qui diffusent la lumière.

Selon Peter Irvine, les craintes que cette géo-ingénierie puisse accidentellement faire baisser trop
fortement la température et provoquer une apocalypse glaciaire, comme dans le film «Snowpiercer,
le Transperceneige», ne sont pas fondées. En ajustant les injections d’aérosols selon les besoins,
«vous pourriez gérer le climat comme le thermostat de votre maison», explique-t-il.

Cependant, nous avons des raisons d’être circonspects. Les aérosols ont une durée de vie limitée et
la géo-ingénierie solaire, si elle n’est pas gérée de manière prudente et durable, pourrait provoquer
un rebond rapide des températures, auquel certaines espèces pourraient être incapables de s’adapter.
Les chercheurs ont également démontré que la manipulation de la température pourrait augmenter
considérablement le nombre et l’intensité des phénomènes climatiques naturels tels que l’oscillation
australe El Niño, un réchauffement des températures océaniques qui affecte les conditions
météorologiques et les précipitations.

Cependant, les travaux de modélisation dirigés par Peter Irvine indiquent que si la géo-ingénierie
était mise en œuvre dans le but de réduire de moitié le réchauffement climatique, au lieu de
l’éradiquer complètement, l’ajout d’aérosols dans la stratosphère permettrait d’obtenir des gains à
l’échelle planétaire, avec de faibles risques.

Il existe également des stratégies d’ingénierie solaire plus localisées. Le blanchissement des nuages
marins, par exemple, consiste à ensemencer les stratocumulus présents le long des côtes avec des
aérosols d’eau de mer, ce qui augmente la concentration des gouttelettes dans les nuages et génère
un effet d’albédo permettant de réfléchir l’énergie solaire. Cette approche pourrait être utile pour
gérer les zones sensibles à la température, telles que la calotte glaciaire ou les récifs coralliens.
Cependant, le blanchissement des nuages marins comporte, lui aussi, certains risques. Il pourrait
provoquer d’importantes différences localisées qui interagiraient de manière imprévisible avec la
circulation océanique, les régimes climatiques et la biologie locale.

La géo-ingénierie solaire n’a, pour le moment, pas encore atteint une taille critique. Le financement
est estimé à seulement 8 millions d’USD en 2017 et 2018, comparés aux 3,5 milliards d’USD
dépensés chaque année dans la recherche sur le changement climatique. Cette approche suscite
également des réactions négatives.

La manipulation des conditions météorologiques, bien qu’elle soit différente de la géo-ingénierie

planétaire, possède un passé militaire peu glorieux: Operation Popeye, par exemple, était une
initiative militaire américaine d’ensemencement des nuages destinée à prolonger la saison des
moussons dans le but de perturber la logistique militaire nord-vietnamienne. En 1978, une
convention de l’ONU a été initiée, interdisant la modification de l’environnement à des fins
militaires.

Une critique plus répandue de toutes les formes de géo-ingénierie est celle du risque moral et de la
complaisance: le vague espoir de pouvoir modifier le climat par l’ingénierie pourrait inciter les
décideurs à éviter de prendre les mesures difficiles, pourtant nécessaires pour réduire les émissions.
Les partisans de la géo-ingénierie, en revanche, considèrent qu’il s’agit d’un outil parmi d’autres et
affirment que, sans elle, nous ne pourrons peut-être pas éviter une catastrophe climatique –
notamment parce qu’en raison de la lenteur de la physique climatique, les températures mondiales
connaîtront un pic au moment où le monde aura atteint un niveau nul d’émissions nettes.

«La géo-ingénierie solaire peut réduire les températures que nous observons à un niveau net de
zéro», précise Peter Irvine. «Je pense que nous avons fait d’énormes progrès [en matière de
réduction des émissions] dans les pays développés. Les technologies solaires et éoliennes sont
disponibles et compétitives; cette transition est bien engagée. Toutefois, ces progrès s’inscrivent
dans le contexte d’une économie mondiale qui croît chaque année, et nous approchons d'un pic des
émissions.»

Il existe des divergences d’opinions au sein de la population, et il semble que les habitants des pays
en développement, qui sont plus exposés aux effets du changement climatique, soient plus ouverts à
la géo-ingénierie, selon Masahiro Sugiyama, professeur associé à l’Institut de recherche sur les
alternatives politiques de l’université de Tokyo. Il a supervisé une enquête en ligne auprès
d’étudiants universitaires dans six pays de la région Asie-Pacifique et a constaté une attitude plus
positive parmi les étudiants originaires d’économies émergentes (Chine, Inde et Philippines) que
parmi les étudiants issus de pays à revenus élevés (Australie, Japon et Corée du Sud). «Ils sont en
première ligne du changement climatique et sont plus concernés. Ils se sentent peut-être plus
désespérés et veulent connaître toutes les mesures possibles pour éviter les dommages liés au
changement climatique.»

Cependant, selon Masahiro Sugiyama, les personnes interrogées s’accordent largement sur la
nécessité d’une gouvernance internationale. Les chercheurs soutiennent des principes et des cadres
qui pourraient guider l’incubation de la géo-ingénierie solaire, l’intervention la plus controversée,
en exigeant notamment l’implication du public, une «gouvernance préalable au déploiement» et une
évaluation indépendante de ses effets.

Déployer d’immenses surfaces réfléchissantes autour de la terre pour bloquer une partie de la
lumière du soleil. Extraire le dioxyde de carbone de l’air et l’injecter dans les sédiments. Exploiter
la biomasse végétale riche en CO2 pour produire de l’électricité… les apports de la géo-ingénierie
appliquée au climat semblent relever de la science-fiction. Et pourtant, la recherche fondamentale et
les modélisations sont déjà en cours.
La géo-ingénierie : solution de dernier recours ?

Le 12 décembre 2015, après d’âpres négociations, les délégués des 190 pays qui ont participé à la
COP 21 de Paris sont parvenus à un projet d’accord final pour limiter le réchauffement climatique à
moins de 2° C à l’horizon 2100. Cet objectif, jugé « ambitieux », serait toutefois insuffisant selon
une étude du Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. En effet, le réchauffement climatique,
même jugulé, ainsi que la hausse du niveau des océans, augmenteraient la probabilité de survenue
de phénomènes climatiques extrêmes comme les canicules, les sécheresses, la pluviosité excessive
et les différents événements météorologiques qui en découlent.

« Nous avons déterminé que les humains ont déjà accru la probabilité d’événements extrêmes
historiquement inédits dans 50 à 90 % de l’Amérique du Nord, de l’Europe et de l’est de l’Asie »,
peut-on lire dans le rapport de l’étude. En somme, la concrétisation de l’objectif de l’accord de Paris
limiterait les dégâts sans éliminer le risque d’épisodes météo extrêmes qui tendraient plutôt à se
multiplier. Face à ce scénario catastrophe, la communauté scientifique s’active, notamment dans la
filière de la géo-ingénierie. Certains la jugent d’ailleurs comme la solution de dernier recours dans
la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique.
Les deux grands axes de la géo-ingénierie climatique selon la NAS

Selon le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) qui regroupe 195
États sous l’égide de l’ONU, la géo-ingénierie fait référence à « l’ensemble des méthodes et des
techniques qui visent à modifier délibérément le système climatique pour lutter contre les effets du
changement climatique ». Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter un changement dans la terminologie
anglophone, suggérée par la National Academy of Science (NAS). On parle désormais de « Climate
Intervention », une expression plus explicite pour désigner la géo-ingénierie à visée climatique. La
NAS, mandatée par l’administration Obama en 2012, suggère deux grands axes d’intervention pour
appuyer les efforts d’atténuation (réduire les émissions de CO2) et d’adaptation (limiter les impacts
du réchauffement sur l’Homme et la planète).
#1 La décarbonisation de l’atmosphère

Le mode opératoire n’est pas encore arrêté, puisque l’étape de la recherche fondamentale n’a
commencé qu’en 2018. Sur les six pistes précédemment retenues, quatre ont été jugées viables. La
NAS estime que l’effort de recherche devrait s’étaler sur deux décennies avec un besoin de
financement compris entre 8,5 et 11 milliards de dollars :

De nouvelles pratiques agricoles et forestières pour le captage et le stockage du carbone dans les
systèmes terrestres (boisement et reboisement) ;
L’exploitation de la biomasse végétale (contenant du CO2) pour produire de l’électricité et des
combustibles ;
La capture du CO2 dans l’air pour le réinjecter dans une formation géologique ;
La minéralisation du carbone via une altération accélérée.

#2 La maîtrise du rayonnement solaire

La NAS définit cet axe de recherche comme étant l’ensemble des techniques susceptibles «
d’accroître la fraction du rayonnement solaire réfléchie par la Terre ». Évoquée depuis plus d’une
décennie, la technique de l’intégration artificielle d’aérosols stratosphériques semble avoir les
faveurs de la communauté scientifique. Directement inspirée des éruptions volcaniques, elle
consiste à libérer des particules en suspension dans l’air (comparables aux composés soufrés
dégagés par les volcans) pour limiter le rayonnement solaire. À titre d’exemple, l’éruption du Mont
Pinatubo en juin 1991 avait fait baisser le rayonnement solaire de 10 %. On estime que le
rayonnement solaire dirigé vers la Terre doit baisser de 3 % pour ramener la planète à sa
température moyenne préindustrielle.

Mines Saint-Etienne a lancé à la rentrée 2019 un nouveau Mastère Spécialisé « Gestion de projet
Sites et Sols Pollués », répondant ainsi à une demande d’expertise clairement identifiée. Découvrez
ce cursus de 12 mois ouvert aux salariés, aux ingénieurs et aux titulaires d’un Master 2 technique en
sciences de l’ingénieur et de l’environnement.
La prise de conscience du changement climatique a relancé des discussions souvent controversées
sur deux autres approches possibles pour limiter le changement climatique :

l’élimination des gaz à effet de serre dans l’atmosphère ambiante, en particulier le CO2 en tant
que principal perturbateur climatique, appelée élimination du dioxyde de carbone (EDC)
la réduction ou le réfléchissement intentionnels du rayonnement solaire dans l'espace afin de
minimiser le réchauffement climatique.

Ces approches ont été désignées collectivement sous divers noms, notamment géo-ingénierie, génie
climatique et interventions climatiques. Bien qu'aucune des techniques proposées n'existe encore à
des échelles suffisantes pour affecter le climat mondial, leur place ne cesse de croître dans les
scénarios de changement climatique et les discussions politiques (p. ex. l’application extensive des
techniques d’élimination du CO2 de l'atmosphère dans un scénario du Groupe d'experts
intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC)).

La géo-ingénierie est donc un terme générique faisant référence à des technologies hétérogènes que
le public ne perçoit pas de la même manière. Certaines sont très controversées, d’autres beaucoup
moins. Les risques et les avantages de cette approche ne sont pas encore pleinement compris par la
communauté scientifique mais suscitent un intérêt grandissant.
Comment fonctionne cette approche ?
Élimination du dioxyde de carbone (EDC)
L’EDC est un processus consistant à éliminer dans l’atmosphère le CO2 qui cause le réchauffement
climatique par effet de serre. Puisque il agit à l’inverse des émissions, les pratiques ou les
technologies qui éliminent le CO2 sont souvent décrites comme des "émissions négatives". Le
procédé est parfois appelé plus généralement "élimination des gaz à effet de serre" s’il implique
l’élimination de gaz autres que le CO2. Il existe deux grands types d’EDC :

- L’amélioration des processus naturels existants qui éliminent le carbone de l’atmosphère (p. ex.,
en augmentant son absorption par les arbres, le sol ou d’autres puits de carbone),
- L’utilisation de procédés chimiques pour, par exemple, capter le CO2 directement dans l’air
ambiant et le stocker ailleurs (p. ex. sous terre).
Les technologies à émissions négatives (TEN) sont impliquées dans les processus d’EDC.

Gestion du rayonnement solaire (GRS)

L’objectif de la gestion du rayonnement solaire (GRS) ou de la géo-ingénierie solaire (GS) est de
diminuer la quantité de rayonnement solaire absorbé par une augmentation de l’albédo. Elles visent
à renvoyer une très faible fraction de la lumière solaire dans l’espace afin de compenser
partiellement le déséquilibre énergétique causé par l’accumulation des gaz à effet de serre.
Les controverses autour de la géo-ingénierie
La géo-ingénierie ne doit en aucun cas ralentir la transition énergétique vers la neutralité carbone et
le déploiement de l’électricité et des gaz renouvelables, en particulier, elle ne doit jamais servir
d’excuse pour continuer à utiliser des énergies fossiles. Il s’agit plutôt d’un frein d’urgence que
nous pourrions devoir déployer pour nous assurer d’atteindre les objectifs de 1,5 °C ou 2 °C. Pour
les partisans de la géo-ingénierie, face à l'urgence climatique, le changement global du
comportement humain à court terme est un pari plus risqué que le développement de la géo-
ingénierie.
À ce stade, 3 principaux aspects controversés de la géo-ingénierie peuvent être identifiés :

Acceptabilité sociale

De nombreuses ONG environnementales prônent une transformation de la société plutôt que le

développement de technologies compensatoires. Par exemple, le WWF a résumé sa position de la
manière suivante : « Penser que nous pourrons prolonger le "statu quo" sans changer nos
comportements et notre mode de vie, en ne comptant que sur la géo-ingénierie, est un mensonge.
Nous devons réduire notre contribution anthropique au changement climatique, et non pas essayer
de le réparer en utilisant des technologies douteuses et en dépensant des fonds qui sont absolument
nécessaires pour les mesures d’atténuation et d’adaptation ».
Certaines technologies n’auront pas le soutien d’acteurs clés, comme la géo-ingénierie solaire et le
stockage géologique. On peut noter que le boisement et le reboisement ne relèvent pas de ce type de
débat, alors que de nombreux scientifiques alertent sur le fait qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une solution
miracle et questionnent l’idée d’équilibre compensatoire.

Risque et impact
Les controverses sont également nombreuses chez les scientifiques quant aux effets et aux risques
de la géo-ingénierie. Ces risques comprennent l’immaturité et l’impermanence des technologies, les
coûts financiers élevés et la destruction de l’environnement pour la GRS (qualité de l’air et
pollution atmosphérique, des océans et de la végétation).
Pour l’EDC, les incertitudes concernent davantage la perméabilité et la stabilité des stockages non
biologiques (risques de fuite, d’activité sismique et de contamination de l’eau), alors que les
incertitudes liées à la GRS portent davantage sur les effets climatiques à l’échelle mondiale.
À ce jour, ces incertitudes ne permettent pas au GIEC de prendre pleinement en compte ces
technologies dans ses scénarios (sauf pour le boisement).

Questions de politique et de gouvernance

Enfin, la géo-ingénierie pose également des questions de politique et de gouvernance. Le

développement de technologies ayant un impact mondial devrait nécessiter la mise en place d’une
gouvernance internationale pour la coopération et la réglementation (y compris l’expérimentation,
comme par exemple avec l’injection ou la pulvérisation de molécules). Concernant l’EDC,
l’arbitrage et la médiation de l’utilisation des sols sont une question supplémentaire.
La mesure et l’attribution de crédits pour le CO2 capturé pourraient s’effectuer de manière
unilatérale.

La géo-ingénierie peut nous sauver de la crise climatique, affirment ses partisans. En recourant à
des technologies d'élimination du dioxyde de carbone dans l'atmosphère, ou de réfraction d'une
partie du rayonnement solaire depuis la Terre, nous pourrions remédier aux dégâts provoqués par
l'incapacité de l'humanité à réduire ses émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES), considèrent-ils. Or,
si cette solution apparaît évidemment séduisante, rien ne prouve qu'elle fonctionnera, sans parler de
ses effets secondaires absolument inconnus. Aux yeux des populations des îles du Pacifique, l'idée
mérite à peine réflexion.

Les défenseurs de la géo-ingénierie ont raison sur une chose : nous connaissons une urgence
climatique qui exige une action radicale sans tarder. Le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur
l'évolution du climat (GIEC) l'a clairement souligné en octobre 2018, et a renforcé son argumentaire
le mois dernier, à travers son rapport sur les sols et le changement climatique.
Lire aussi :

Climat : ne jouons pas aux apprentis sorciers !

Un certain nombre de puissances économiques, parmi lesquelles le Canada, l'Irlande et le Royaume-

Uni, ainsi que plusieurs régions et villes, ont désormais officiellement reconnu l'ampleur de la crise.
La question est de savoir si les engagements suivront, autour de l'action à entreprendre.
Ce n'est pas ce qui a été observé lors de la Conférence de l'ONU sur les changements climatiques
organisée l'an dernier à Katowice, en Pologne. Les dirigeants s'en sont tenus à des engagements peu
ambitieux, autorisant la poursuite des affaires courantes, une issue favorisée par des Etats dans
lesquels l'industrie des combustibles fossiles exerce une influence économique et politique
considérable. Dans la plupart des cas, ce sont ces mêmes Etats qui ont défendu les solutions de géo-
ingénierie.
Dernier recours

Chez les populations des îles du Pacifique, qui se situent en première ligne d'une crise climatique à
laquelle ils ont à peine participé, cette approche constamment intéressée et de courte vue a suscité
dans un premier temps la déception, puis la frustration, et désormais la colère. Les 14 pays
insulaires souverains du Pacifique ne représentent ensemble qu'environ 0,02 % des émissions
mondiales de GES. Or, pour beaucoup de très basse altitude, voire entièrement composées d'atolls,
ces îles sont extrêmement vulnérables aux effets du changement climatique, à commencer par la
montée du niveau des océans.

Les populations insulaires du Pacifique savent pertinemment le danger qu'il y aurait à succomber
aux sirènes de la géo-ingénierie. Les gouvernements de la région ont déjà été approchés par les
partisans et chercheurs du domaine. Lors d'un séminaire de 2013 à Suva, capitale des îles Fidji -
organisé par le Centre du Pacifique pour le développement environnemental et durable ainsi que par
l'Institut d'études avancées sur la durabilité de l'Université du Pacifique Sud - les participants ont
convenu que davantage de recherches, qu'une plus grande sensibilisation, et qu'un débat transparent
sur la question étaient nécessaires.

Pour autant, comme l'ont souligné ces participants, aucune technologie de géo-ingénierie ne saurait
être mise en oeuvre sans la preuve d'un niveau suffisant de sécurité, et uniquement en dernier
recours. Les essais de terrain eux-mêmes ne sauraient avoir lieu sans réglementations exécutoires et
structures de gouvernance. Plus important encore, les Etats du Pacifique ont convenu que les
technologies de géo-ingénierie ne devaient pas être considérées comme un substitut à des efforts
mondiaux radicaux, notamment à une réduction majeure des émissions.

Or, six ans plus tard, le débat a totalement changé. De nouveaux projets de recherche sur la géo-
ingénierie, propositions d'expérimentations, et autres applications commerciales figurent à l'agenda.
Dans le même temps, les efforts d'atténuation des dégâts sont cruellement insuffisants, en particulier
dans les pays dont le gouvernement concentre son attention sur la géo-ingénierie pour excuser sa
propre inaction. La responsabilité de la crise climatique est en effet aujourd'hui reportée sur les
générations futures, notamment dans les pays en voie de développement qui y ont le moins
contribué.
Transition écologique

Au regard de ce déséquilibre, la position du Forum de développement des îles du Pacifique sur la

question de la géo-ingénierie demeure strictement en phase avec l'appel de la Convention sur la
biodiversité de 2010 à un moratoire - convenu par 196 gouvernements - sur toutes les activités de
géo-ingénierie, jusqu'à ce qu'un « mécanisme mondial, transparent et efficace de contrôle et de
réglementation » ait été mis en place.

Comme l'a clairement affirmé le GIEC, la seule manière de remédier à la crise climatique consiste à
suivre des « trajectoires de transformation » en réduisant très significativement les émissions, ainsi
qu'en préservant et en restaurant les écosystèmes, notamment au travers de ce que l'on peut appeler
une révolution dans l'utilisation des terres. Ces trajectoires sont détaillées non seulement dans les
rapports du GIEC, mais également dans l'accord climatique de Paris 2015.

Elles prévoient le remplacement des combustibles fossiles par des sources d'énergie renouvelables.
Elles impliquent également de tirer pleinement parti de la capacité naturelle de notre planète à
absorber et stocker le carbone, en préservant ainsi qu'en développant les puits de carbone naturels
tels que les forêts, les mangroves, ou encore les prairies sous-marines. Comme le souligne le GIEC
dans son rapport sur les sols, les mesures telles que le renforcement du rôle des communautés
locales et autochtones dans la gestion des forêts engendrerait des bienfaits majeurs, tout comme la
transformation des systèmes alimentaires en direction de pratiques agricoles durables, et d'une
réduction du gaspillage alimentaire au strict minimum.
Lire aussi :

Le réchauffement climatique s'annonce plus fort que prévu

La plupart des réponses nécessaires contribueront positivement au développement durable ainsi qu'à
d'autres objectifs mondiaux. Pour commencer, une planète plus saine serait synonyme d'individus
en meilleure santé : à l'origine de diverses maladies respiratoires, la pollution extérieure provoque
près de trois millions de décès prématurés chaque année.
Le passage à des énergies renouvelables contribuerait par ailleurs à la création de nombreux
emplois de qualité, bien au-delà de ce que propose l'industrie des combustibles fossiles, sans parler
des coûts massifs que nous pourrions éviter - notamment associés à des événements
météorologiques de plus fréquents et intenses - si nous réduisions efficacement le changement
climatique.

Plus nous tarderons, plus la crise deviendra urgente - et plus les risques d'action imprudente
augmenteront. L'escalade rapide des effets du changement climatique sert d'ores et déjà de prétexte
à des expérimentations de géo-ingénierie susceptibles d'entraîner des conséquences
environnementales dévastatrices et imprévisibles, ainsi que de pousser le monde vers une pente
glissante conduisant à leur déploiement, sans les garanties de sécurité ni les structures
réglementaires suffisantes.

Nous savons ce qu'il faut changer. Nous le savons depuis des années. Si tous les Etats prennent leurs
responsabilités, nous pouvons répondre efficacement au changement climatique. Afin de préserver
l'humanité, à commencer par les populations insulaires ultra-vulnérables du Pacifique, nous devons
agir sans plus attendre.