Geoengineering as a Possible Solution to Climate Change...Maybe, Not Quite Yet

The call to limit the effects of climate change have gained more traction over time. Last October, the United Nations released a report saying that if we do not do something in 12 years, we will not be able to minimize the effects of climate change. The good news is that something could still be done. The bad news, per the UN report, is that we need to do something on the more drastic end of the spectrum in order to avoid catastrophe. Granted, a study in Earth System Dynamics (Aengenheyster et al., 2018) provides some skepticism on the "point of no return," saying that it could be anywhere between 2035 and 2042. Even so, it doesn't seem like kicking the can down the road seems like a viable option.

One solution that has been presented as an option is climate engineering, commonly referred to as geoengineering. Geoengineering is the systemic, large-scale intervention of mitigating climate change. There are two main methods of geoengineering: greenhouse gas removal and solar radiation management (SRM). SRM has been the more popular of choices. One of the main advantages of SRM is that it comes at a low cost, especially when compared to other proposed climate change mitigation efforts. The idea behind SRM is to emit [sulfate] aerosols into the stratosphere, which should brighten ocean surfaces and clouds to reflect sunlight back into space. There are a number of criticisms of geoengineering, including termination shock, the politics of implementation, potential weaponization, and cannot be considered a complete solution since it does not remove the greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The biggest criticism that exists is its control, and thus its predicability. Geoengineering has been considered taboo because it has the real potential to cause greater problems and greater disproportionality of the effects of the climate change.

However, a new study seemingly contradicts the fears of geoengineering. Harvard engineer Peter Irvine and his colleagues (Irvine et al., 2019) have potentially found a solution with geoengineering. Per this study, it is a matter of how much geoengineering we use. A huge quantity would cause major issues, but spraying the "proper dosage" could cut global warming in half. Not only would this geoengineering cut global warming in half, but it wouldn't cause negative effects for any region.

This study does come with a few caveats. One is that it would only halve the upcoming global warming. Although it's rare to have a policy that acts as a silver bullet, solving half of the problem is pretty good. It means we need to avoid the potential moral hazard and make sure we stay on the ball to solve the other half. The second caveat is that, as the authors of the study admit, these results are under a more idealized situation. Third, the scenario they use is one in which CO2 levels double. That might sound like a lot, except that CO₂ levels are expected to increase even more than by twofold. Finally, we have to recall that geoengineering is nowhere near ready for large-scale implementation. The effects of geoengineering has only been conducted by computer modeling.

What this study does provide is new possibility for geoengineering. While this study is not definitive enough to inform policy decisions (as the author of the study admits), it is strong enough where geoengineering merits further consideration. Why? While a medium-term solution, natural gas isn't going to bring carbon emissions down adequately. Wind and solar power do not possess the capacity or scale to help, and very well might not be able to do so ever. China, which is the #1 emitter of carbon, is not cutting its production of coal. Not enough nuclear power plants are being built to help offset carbon emission. If the point of return is approaching, then we cannot take geoengineering off the table quite yet, at least until we can better prove its ultimate viability.