Geoengineering Research and Applications

🚨New Report on Geo-Engineering and Risk Gradients in the Era of Planetary Security With Mandi Bissett and James Dyke, we worked over the past year on a policy primer about various geo-engineering approaches. Why? The world is hurtling past the 1.5°C threshold at a staggering pace. The costs and impacts that climate change inflicts are not just adding up; they are increasingly threatening the foundations of human and non-human life, political and economic stability, and in some circumstances, they are also changing the very fabrics of international security. Yet, mitigation efforts are neither fast nor radical enough. In the gap between costs and necessary measures, voices advocating for geo-engineering approaches - so-called climate "interventions" - are becoming louder. What are they? Geo-engineering approaches are designed to mitigate the effects of climate change as opposed to its drivers. They range from carbon dioxide removal to solar radiation management. Policy and public debates about geoengineering tend to polarize. It is only natural - the increasing interest in geoengineering is a sign that existential threats are materialising as a result of the lack of or delayed climate and nature action. It is precisely because of this polarisation, and because debates about geoengineering are increasingly going to happen, that James, Mandi, and I wanted to write this report. We wanted up-to-date information about various forms of climate interventions - what they are, how they interact, what they will do, and will not do. We wanted to contextualise this information into a larger picture, going beyond the technical. Most of all, we want informed questions to guide debates, and eventually, to inform decisions about the why, what & how of geoengineering in any potential application scenario. Here is what this report will help you with: 👉 Understanding the scientific and policy background against which geoengineering is emerging 👉Understanding the range of geo-engineering applications, their technicalities and their readiness level 👉Contextualising each approach in terms of what it takes with regard to its inputs, its environmental application, its individual risk categories 👉Introducing a novel analytical frame for understanding what risks geoengineering approaches generate for human, environmental, geopolitical, and planetary security. One of the things I take away from this research is this: geoengineering is a sign that we have already entered the age of the planetary. But we lack the analytical, governance, and normative frameworks to help humanity conceptualize, navigate, and evolve in this age. Intervening at planetary levels without those frames raises new security challenges that we are currently unequipped for. Link to the report below 👇

It’s high time to take geoengineering more seriously as a potential tool to mitigate climate change. 2023 was the hottest year on record, and 2024 is likely to top that. In the United States, Hurricane Helene caused over 200 deaths, and Hurricane Milton's death toll is at least two dozen. It’s well established that the hurricanes are growing stronger as global temperatures rise. While stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) — which sprays particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere to provide a small amount of shade from the sun — is far from a perfect solution, we should take it seriously as a possible tool for saving lives. A few months ago, my collaborators and I released a climate emulator, Planet Parasol http://planetparasol.ai , that you can play with to simulate different SAI scenarios to understand its possible impact. By using AI to model its impact and thereby advance our understanding of SAI, we’ll be better prepared to decide if this is a good step. The key idea of SAI, which is a form of climate geoengineering, is to spray reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect a little more, say 1%, of the sunlight that otherwise would fall on Earth back into space. This small increase in reflected sunlight would be sufficient to mitigate much of the impact of human-induced warming. For example, in 1991, Mount Pinatubo ejected almost 20 tons of aerosols (sulfur dioxide) into the atmosphere and cooled down the planet by around 0.5 degrees Celsius over the following year. We should be able to induce cooling equivalent to, say, a fraction of Mount Pinatubo, via a fair, international process that’s backed by science. There are many criticisms of SAI, such as: - It could have unintended climate consequences, for example, disrupting local weather patterns and creating droughts or floods. - If it were started and then stopped suddenly, it could lead to sudden warming, known as “termination shock.” - Depending on the aerosol used (sulfur dioxide is a leading candidate), it could contribute to pollution and/or ozone depletion. - It might reduce urgency to decarbonize (an example of a “moral hazard”). In addition, many people have a visceral emotional reaction, as I once did before I understood the science more deeply, against “playing god” by daring to engineer the planet. All these downsides should be balanced against the reality that people are dying. I’m moved by meteorologist John Morales’ emotional account of the havoc caused by Hurricane Milton. The New York Times quoted him as saying, “It claims lives. It also wrecks lives.” https://lnkd.in/gamSF82R [Reached length limit. Full text: https://lnkd.in/gngQF_Pv ]

We’re entering a new—and deeply uncomfortable—chapter in the climate conversation. Geoengineering. Once dismissed as fringe science, it’s now gaining traction in policy circles, research institutions, and even government budgets. At the center: Solar Radiation Management (SRM)—injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and artificially cool the planet. It sounds like science fiction. But it’s edging closer to science fact. • The U.S. government has begun quietly funding SRM research. • The UN Environment Programme is recognizing its relevance. • Harvard’s once-paused research is moving forward again. What was once taboo is now part of serious climate strategy discussions. Supporters call it a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency tool. As warming accelerates and tipping points loom, SRM may be seen as the only viable stopgap. Unpredictable weather disruptions. Potential droughts. Weakened monsoons. The risk of abrupt climate rebound if SRM is ever halted. No global governance. No accountability. And the moral hazard: if SRM offers a “fix,” will we slow down on cutting emissions? This is no longer just a scientific or technical issue. It’s ethical. Political. Global. We’ve focused on decarbonization, adaptation, and circularity. Now we must face the very real prospect of climate intervention technologies—with all the risks, complexities, and unequal consequences they carry. Geoengineering is not a distant hypothetical. It’s here. It’s rising. And it could shape climate leadership for decades to come. We may not like where the conversation is heading—but we can’t afford to ignore it. #ClimateChange #Sustainability #Geoengineering #SRM #ClimateLeadership #Decarbonization #EthicsInScience #ClimatePolicy #centerforsustainablefuture Kearney Kearney Middle East and Africa

🌊 Exploring Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) in Climate Mitigation 🌊 As we confront the escalating climate crisis, innovative solutions like Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) are gaining attention. OAE involves increasing the ocean’s alkalinity to enhance its natural capacity to absorb and store atmospheric CO₂, thereby mitigating climate change and countering ocean acidification. 🟢Pros of OAE: • Enhanced Carbon Sequestration: By boosting the ocean’s ability to absorb CO₂, OAE could play a significant role in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. • Mitigation of Ocean Acidification: Increasing alkalinity can help neutralize ocean acidity, benefiting marine ecosystems and organisms sensitive to pH changes. 🔴Cons of OAE: • Environmental Uncertainties: The long-term ecological impacts of altering ocean chemistry are not fully understood, raising concerns about potential unintended consequences. • Technical and Economic Challenges: Implementing OAE at scale requires substantial investment and technological development, with current costs estimated between $100 to $150 per ton of CO₂ removed. 💡My view: I believe that while OAE and similar carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies offer promising avenues for addressing climate change, they should complement—not replace—urgent efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Prioritizing emission reductions remains essential, with CDR methods serving as supplementary strategies to achieve net-zero targets. A balanced approach that combines immediate emission cuts with the exploration of innovative solutions like OAE will be crucial in our fight against climate change. It’s imperative to invest in research to fully understand the implications of OAE and develop clear regulatory frameworks to ensure its safe and effective deployment. What do you think? For a great overview of this emerging technology, check out this piece in The Washington Post: https://lnkd.in/e_G6jTr6 #climate #co2 #emissions #cdr #climatetech #geoengingeering #oceans #climatescience