Why Solar Geoengineering Should Be Part of the Climate Crisis Solution
By Betsy Mason
For decades, climate scientist David Keith of Harvard University has been trying to get people to take his research seriously. He's a pioneer in the field of geoengineering, which aims to combat climate change through a range of technological fixes. Over the years, ideas have included sprinkling iron in the ocean to stimulate plankton to suck up more carbon from the atmosphere or capturing carbon straight out of the air.
Keith founded a company that develops technology to remove carbon from the air, but his specialty is solar geoengineering, which involves reflecting sunlight away from Earth to reduce the amount of heat that gets trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. The strategy hasn't been proven, but modeling suggests it will work. And because major volcanic eruptions can have the same effect, there are some real-world data to anchor the idea.
In the near future, Keith and his colleagues hope to launch one of the first tests of the concept: a high-altitude balloon that would inject tiny, reflective particles into the layer of the upper atmosphere known as the stratosphere. The place and time for the experiment are still to be determined, but it would be a baby step toward showing whether artificial stratospheric particles could help cool the planet the way eruptions do naturally.
But the idea of using a technological fix for climate change is controversial. Talking about — let alone researching — geoengineering has long been considered taboo for fear that it would dampen efforts to fight climate change in other ways, particularly the critical work of reducing carbon emissions. That left geoengineering on the fringes of climate research. But people's attitudes may be changing, Keith says. He argues that while geoengineering by itself cannot solve the problem of climate change, it could help mitigate the damage if implemented carefully alongside emissions reductions.
In 2000, Keith published an overview of geoengineering research in the Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, in which he noted that major climate assessments up until that point had largely ignored it. Earlier this year, he spoke in Seattle about the current state of the field at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Knowable Magazine talked with Keith about how the scientific, technological and geopolitical landscape has changed in the intervening decades.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Twenty years ago you called geoengineering "deeply controversial." How has the controversy changed since then?
Back then it was something that a pretty small group of people who thought about climate knew about — and mostly agreed they wouldn't talk about. And that was it. Now it's much more widely discussed. I think the taboo is reduced, for sure. It's certainly still controversial, but my sense is that there has been a real shift. An increasing number of people who are in climate science or in public policy around climate or in environmental groups now agree that this is something we should talk about, even if many think it should never be implemented. There's even growing agreement that research should happen. It feels really different.
Why was there a taboo against talking about geoengineering, and do you think was it valid?
I think it's well-intentioned; people are right to worry that talking about geoengineering might reduce the effort to cut emissions. I don't think this concern about moral hazard is a valid reason not to do research. There were people who argued that we shouldn't allow the AIDS triple-drug cocktail to be distributed in Africa because it would be misused, creating resistance. Others argued against implementation of airbags, because people would drive faster. There is a long history of arguing against all sorts of potentially risk-reducing technologies because of the potential for risk compensation — the possibility that people will change behavior by taking on more risks. I think it's an ethically confused argument.
For me, the most serious concern is some entities — like big fossil-fuel companies that have a political interest in blocking emissions cuts — will attempt to exploit the potential of geoengineering as an argument against emissions cuts. This concern has likely been the primary reason that some big civil-society groups want to block or contain discussion of this stuff so it doesn't enter more widely into the climate debate. For me the concern is entirely justified, but I think the right answer is to confront it head-on rather than avoiding debate. I don't want a world where decisions are made by elites talking behind closed doors.
Solar geoengineering would involve injecting reflective aerosols from high-altitude planes into the layer of the upper atmosphere known as the stratosphere, which stretches between 10 to 50 kilometers (6 to 31 miles) above Earth's surface. The idea is that the aerosol particles would reflect a small amount of sunlight away from the planet, reducing the amount of heat trapped by greenhouse gases and mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
Has the amount of geoengineering research increased in the past two decades?
Dramatically, even in the last couple of years. When I wrote that Annual Reviews paper in 2000, there was virtually zero organized research. There were a few researchers occasionally getting interested and putting in like 1 percent of their time.
Now there are little research programs almost everywhere you care to mention. There's a Chinese program that's pretty serious; there's an Australian one that's better funded than anything in the United States; there are several in Europe.
What has been the biggest surprise over the past 20 years in how solar geoengineering might work?
The big surprise has been recent results, including two studies I was involved in, showing that the effects of a global solar geoengineering program wouldn't be as geographically unequal as was feared. What matters for real public policy is who is made worse off.
For one paper published last year in Nature Climate Change, we used a very high-resolution computer model, and we compared, over all the land surface, two worlds: one world where we have two times preindustrial levels of carbon dioxide and the other world where we have enough solar geoengineering to reduce the temperature change by half. For each of the 33 geographical study regions designated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we tried to look at whether solar geoengineering would move a particular climate variable back toward preindustrial levels, which we call "moderated," or move it further away from preindustrial, which we call "exacerbated."
We focused on some of the most important climate variables: change in extreme temperature, change in average temperature, change in water availability and change in extreme precipitation. And what we found seems almost too good to be true: There wasn't a single variable in a single region that was exacerbated. That was a surprise.
In a paper published in March in Environmental Research Letters, we did the same analysis with another model, and we found that with solar geoengineering, everything is moderated in all regions except four. But all four of those are dry regions that get wetter. So my guess is many residents of those regions would actually prefer that outcome because in general people are more worried about getting drier than wetter.
Now, what the model shows may or may not be true in the real world. But if there is a single reason to really look at these technologies and evaluate them in experiments, it's results like this that show you can reduce almost all or many of the major perturbations of climate without making any region significantly worse. That's quite a thing.
How would your planned real-world experiment, known as the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), work?
SCoPEx is a stratospheric balloon experiment to put aerosols in the stratosphere and measure their interaction over the first hours and the first kilometer or so after release in a plume. It involves a high-altitude balloon that will lift a gondola carrying a package of scientific instruments to an altitude of 20 kilometers. It will release a very small amount of materials such as ice, calcium carbonate (essentially powdered limestone) or sulfuric acid droplets known as sulfates. The gondola will be fitted with propellers that were originally made for airboats so that it can fly through the plume of released materials to take measurements.
The amount of released material will be on the order of 1 kilogram, which is far too small to have any direct health or environmental impact once released. The goal is not to change climate or even to see if you can reflect any sunlight. The goal is simply to improve our models of the way aerosols form in the stratosphere, especially in plumes, which is very relevant for understanding how solar geoengineering would work. We hope to launch the experiment soon. But when and where that will happen depends on balloon availability and recommendations from an advisory committee.
The planned Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment will send a balloon carrying scientific instruments in a gondola into the stratosphere. The instruments will release a small amount of material — likely ice or mineral dust — to form a kilometer-long plume of aerosol particles (left). Modified airboat propellers will allow the gondola to maneuver above the plume (middle) and lower instruments into the plume to take repeated measurements of how the particles spread through the stratosphere (right). ADAPTED FROM J.A. DYKEMA ET AL / PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A 2014
We know there are health risks related to sulfuric acid pollution in the lower atmosphere. Are there potential health risks from injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere?
Anything we put in the stratosphere will end up coming down to the surface, and that's one of the risks we must consider. A full-scale solar geoengineering program might involve injecting around 1.5 million tons of sulfur and sulfuric acid into the stratosphere per year. This could be done using a fleet of aircraft; roughly 100 aircraft would need to continuously fly payloads up to about 20 kilometers (12 miles) altitude. You would not be wrong to think this sounds crazy. We know that sulfuric acid pollution in the lower atmosphere kills many people every year, so putting sulfuric acid into the stratosphere is obviously a risk. But it's important to understand how much 1.5 million tons a year really is.
The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, poured about 8 million tons of sulfur in one year into the stratosphere. It cooled the climate and had implications for all sorts of systems. Current global emissions of sulfur are about 50 million tons a year into the lower atmosphere, and that kills several million people every year from fine particulate air pollution. So the relative risk from solar geoengineering is fairly small, and it has to be weighed against the risk of not doing solar geoengineering.
How quickly could a full-scale solar geoengineering program get off the ground?
It could happen very fast, but all the ways it happens very fast are bad cases, basically where one country just jumps on it very quickly. It's obvious that what would be best is for countries not to just start doing it but to articulate clear plans and build in checks and balances and so on.
If there were much wider research over the next half-decade to decade — which is possible because attitudes really are changing — then it's plausible that some coalition of countries could begin to inch toward real implementation with serious, visible plans that can be critiqued by the scientific community starting by the end of this decade. I don't expect it will happen that fast, but I think it's possible.
How does geoengineering fit in with other efforts to combat climate change such as reducing fossil-fuel emissions and removing carbon from the air?
The first, and by far the most important, thing we do about climate change is decarbonizing the economy, which breaks the link between economic activity and carbon emissions. There's nothing I can say about solar geoengineering that changes the fact that we have to reduce emissions. If we do not do that, we're done.
Then carbon removal, which involves capturing and storing carbon that has already been emitted, could break the link between emissions and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Large-scale carbon removal really makes sense when emissions are clearly heading toward zero, and we're getting toward the harder chunk of the economy to mitigate. And then solar geoengineering is a thing that might partially and imperfectly weaken, but not break, the link between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate changes — changes in sea level, changes in extreme events, changes in temperature, etc.
So if you look at the curve of overall greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, you can think of emissions cuts as flattening the curve. Carbon removal takes you down the other side of the curve. And then solar geoengineering can cut off the top of the curve, which would reduce the risk of the carbon dioxide that is in the air already.
David Keith envisions using multiple approaches to combat climate change. The red line shows how the impacts of climate change would worsen with a business-as-usual scenario of unabated burning of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas emissions. Aggressively cutting emissions bends that curve, and removing carbon from the atmosphere offers further cuts, but there are still consequences from the already high levels of carbon dioxide. In this scenario, solar geoengineering would lessen the impact from existing atmospheric carbon dioxide, effectively carving the top off the curve.
Some people think we should use it only as a get-out-of-jail card in an emergency. Some people think we should use it to quickly try to get back to a preindustrial climate. I'm arguing we use solar geoengineering to cut the top off the curve by gradually starting it and gradually ending it.
Do you feel optimistic about the chances that solar geoengineering will happen and can make a difference in the climate crisis?
I'm not all that optimistic right now because we seem to be so much further away from an international environment that's going to allow sensible policy. And that's not just in the US. It's a whole bunch of European countries with more populist regimes. It's Brazil. It's the more authoritarian India and China. It's a more nationalistic world, right? It's a little hard to see a global, coordinated effort in the near term. But I hope those things will change.
This story originally appeared in Knowable Magazine and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
- Geoengineering is Not the Answer to Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
- Can Geoengineering Tame Devastating Hurricanes? - EcoWatch ›
- World's Largest Geoengineering Study Triggers Major Controversy ... ›
- Solar Geoengineering Might Not Work if We Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Study Finds - EcoWatch ›
Fifteen states are in for an unusually noisy spring.
- Millions of Cicadas Set to Emerge After 17 Years Underground ... ›
- Cicadas Show Up 4 Years Early - EcoWatch ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Deep in the woods, a hairy, ape-like man is said to be living a quiet and secluded life. While some deny the creature's existence, others spend their lives trying to prove it.
- Why Hunting Isn't Conservation, and Why It Matters - Rewilding ›
- Decline In Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays For Conservation : NPR ›
- Is Hunting Conservation? Let's examine it closely ›
- Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation | Oklahoma ... ›
- Oklahoma Bill Calls for Bigfoot Hunting Season | Is Bigfoot Real? ›
By Jon Queally
Noted author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben was among the first to celebrate word that the president of the European Investment Bank on Wednesday openly declared, "To put it mildly, gas is over" — an admission that squares with what climate experts and economists have been saying for years if not decades.
- Fossil Fuel Industry Is Now 'in the Death Knell Phase': CNBC's Jim ... ›
- Mayors of 12 Major Global Cities Pledge Fossil Fuel Divestment ... ›
- World's Largest Public Bank Ditches Oil and Coal in Victory for the ... ›
Nine feet tall is gigantic by human standards, but when researcher and conservationist Michael Brown spotted a giraffe in Uganda's Murchison Falls National Park that measured nine feet, four inches, he was shocked.
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="54af350ee3a2950e0e5e69d926a55d83"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yf4NRKzzTFk?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
- Giraffe Parts Sold Across U.S. Despite Plummeting Wild Populations ... ›
- Green Groups Sue to Get Giraffes on Endangered Species List ... ›
- Conservationists Sound Alarm on Plummeting Giraffe Numbers ... ›
By Daisy Simmons
1. Stay Informed<p>A first order of business in pet evacuation planning is to understand and be ready for the possible threats in your area. Visit <a href="https://www.ready.gov/be-informed" target="_blank">Ready.gov</a> to learn more about preparing for potential disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. Then pay attention to related updates by tuning <a href="http://www.weather.gov/nwr/" target="_blank">NOAA Weather Radio</a> to your local emergency station or using the <a href="https://www.fema.gov/mobile-app" target="_blank">FEMA app</a> to get National Weather Service alerts.</p>
2. Ensure Your Pet is Easily Identifiable<p><span>Household pets, including indoor cats, should wear collars with ID tags that have your mobile phone number. </span><a href="https://www.avma.org/microchipping-animals-faq" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Microchipping</a><span> your pets will also improve your chances of reunion should you become separated. Be sure to add an emergency contact for friends or relatives outside your immediate area.</span></p><p>Additionally, use <a href="https://secure.aspca.org/take-action/order-your-pet-safety-pack" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">'animals inside' door/window stickers</a> to show rescue workers how many pets live there. (If you evacuate with your pets, quickly write "Evacuated" on the sticker so first responders don't waste time searching for them.)</p>
3. Make a Pet Evacuation Plan<p> "No family disaster plan is complete without including your pets and all of your animals," says veterinarian Heather Case in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9NRJkFKAm4" target="_blank">a video</a> produced by the American Veterinary Medical Association.</p><p>It's important to determine where to take your pet in the event of an emergency.</p><p>Red Cross shelters and many other emergency shelters allow only service animals. Ask your vet, local animal shelters, and emergency management officials for information on local and regional animal sheltering options.</p><p>For those with access to the rare shelter that allows pets, CDC offers <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/emergencies/pets-in-evacuation-centers.html" target="_blank">tips on what to expect</a> there, including potential health risks and hygiene best practices.</p><p>Beyond that, talk with family or friends outside the evacuation area about potentially hosting you and/or your pet if you're comfortable doing so. Search for pet-friendly hotel or boarding options along key evacuation routes.</p><p>If you have exotic pets or a mix of large and small animals, you may need to identify multiple locations to shelter them.</p><p>For other household pets like hamsters, snakes, and fish, the SPCA recommends that if they normally live in a cage, they should be transported in that cage. If the enclosure is too big to transport, however, transfer them to a smaller container temporarily. (More on that <a href="https://www.spcai.org/take-action/emergency-preparedness/evacuation-how-to-be-pet-prepared" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.)</p><p>For any pet, a key step is to establish who in your household will be the point person for gathering up pets and bringing their supplies. Keep in mind that you may not be home when disaster strikes, so come up with a Plan B. For example, you might form a buddy system with neighbors with pets, or coordinate with a trusted pet sitter.</p>
4. Prepare a Pet Evacuation Kit<p>Like the emergency preparedness kit you'd prepare for humans, assemble basic survival items for your pets in a sturdy, easy-to-grab container. Items should include:</p><ul><li>Water, food, and medicine to last a week or two;</li><li>Water, food bowls, and a can opener if packing wet food;</li><li>Litter supplies for cats (a shoebox lined with a plastic bag and litter may work);</li><li>Leashes, harnesses, or vehicle restraints if applicable;</li><li>A <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/emergencycare/pet-first-aid-supplies-checklist" target="_blank">pet first aid kit</a>;</li><li>A sturdy carrier or crate for each cat or dog. In addition to easing transport, these may serve as your pet's most familiar or safe space in an unfamiliar environment;</li><li>A favorite toy and/or blanket;</li><li>If your pet is prone to anxiety or stress, the American Kennel Club suggests adding <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/home-living/create-emergency-evacuation-plan-dog/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">stress-relieving items</a> like an anxiety vest or calming sprays.</li></ul><p>In the not-unlikely event that you and your pet have to shelter in different places, your kit should also include:</p><ul><li>Detailed information including contact information for you, your vet, and other emergency contacts;</li><li>A list with phone numbers and addresses of potential destinations, including pet-friendly hotels and emergency boarding facilities near your planned evacuation routes, plus friends or relatives in other areas who might be willing to host you or your pet;</li><li>Medical information including vaccine records and a current rabies vaccination tag;</li><li>Feeding notes including portions and sizes in case you need to leave your pet in someone else's care;</li><li>A photo of you and your pet for identification purposes.</li></ul>
5. Be Ready to Evacuate at Any Time<p>It's always wise to be prepared, but stay especially vigilant in high-risk periods during fire or hurricane season. Practice evacuating at different times of day. Make sure your grab-and-go kit is up to date and in a convenient location, and keep leashes and carriers by the exit door. You might even stow a thick pillowcase under your bed for middle-of-the-night, dash-out emergencies when you don't have time to coax an anxious pet into a carrier. If forecasters warn of potential wildfire, a hurricane, or other dangerous conditions, bring outdoor pets inside so you can keep a close eye on them.</p><p>As with any emergency, the key is to be prepared. As the American Kennel Club points out, "If you panic, it will agitate your dog. Therefore, <a href="https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/home-living/create-emergency-evacuation-plan-dog/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pet disaster preparedness</a> will not only reduce your anxiety but will help reduce your pet's anxiety too."</p>
Evacuating Horses and Other Farm Animals<p>The same basic principles apply for evacuating horses and most other livestock. Provide each with some form of identification. Ensure that adequate food, water, and medicine are available. And develop a clear plan on where to go and how to get there.</p><p>Sheltering and transporting farm animals requires careful coordination, from identifying potential shelter space at fairgrounds, racetracks, or pastures, to ensuring enough space is available in vehicles and trailers – not to mention handlers and drivers on hand to support the effort.</p><p>For most farm animals, the Red Cross advises that you consider precautionary evacuation when a threat seems imminent but evacuation orders haven't yet been announced. The American Veterinary Medical Association has <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources/pet-owners/emergencycare/large-animals-and-livestock-disasters" target="_blank">more information</a>.</p>
Bottom Line: If You Need to Evacuate, So Do Your Pets<p>As the Humane Society warns, pets left behind in a disaster can easily be injured, lost, or killed. Plan ahead to make sure you can safely evacuate your entire household – furry members included.</p>
- 5 Ways to Be an Eco-Friendly Pet Owner - EcoWatch ›
- Can Your Pets Get and Transmit Coronavirus? - EcoWatch ›