Researchers explore ambitious plan to deflect sun's rays from Earth. While some say it's too risky, others see potential benefits. Here's a closer look.
The world is heating up fast, with 2024 marking the first full year over 1.5C hotter than the 19th-century average. To avoid catastrophic damage, scientists are looking for ways to reduce warming - a top priority remains cutting emissions, but scaling up carbon removal may not be enough. That's where an unconventional plan comes in: deflecting a small fraction of incoming sunlight to reduce warming.
The concept isn't new, with US President Lyndon B Johnson's science advisers proposing it as the only way to cool the planet back in 1965. It's worth noting that our atmosphere already reflects about 30% of incoming sunlight; raising this fraction could strengthen Earth's natural heat shield.
But how? In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted and sent sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, cooling the planet by about 0.5C. This event inspired the idea of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Models suggest SAI could offset 1C of warming with about 12m tonnes of SO₂ per year - a significant cooling effect.
However, critics say that SAI is not a substitute for cutting emissions and could have catastrophic consequences if deployed without proper governance. "We disagree," argue the researchers. Careful research, not reckless proposals, can clarify whether SAI could ever be used safely and effectively.
To achieve this, scientists propose a structured research programme - similar to clinical trials in medicine. This would involve:
Phase one: Releasing tiny amounts of SO₂ into the stratosphere, carefully measuring its evolution using instruments such as aircraft, ground-based and satellite.
Phase two: Scaling up the experiment to 10 or 100 times larger, studying how aerosols mix and distribute, and observing their impact on the environment.
Phase three: Small, deliberate cooling over several years under constant observation and strict oversight - if deemed safe, this could be a key step towards deployment.
To make such a future decision possible, researchers emphasize building tools, rules, and governance mechanisms now, not later.
The world is heating up fast, with 2024 marking the first full year over 1.5C hotter than the 19th-century average. To avoid catastrophic damage, scientists are looking for ways to reduce warming - a top priority remains cutting emissions, but scaling up carbon removal may not be enough. That's where an unconventional plan comes in: deflecting a small fraction of incoming sunlight to reduce warming.
The concept isn't new, with US President Lyndon B Johnson's science advisers proposing it as the only way to cool the planet back in 1965. It's worth noting that our atmosphere already reflects about 30% of incoming sunlight; raising this fraction could strengthen Earth's natural heat shield.
But how? In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted and sent sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, cooling the planet by about 0.5C. This event inspired the idea of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Models suggest SAI could offset 1C of warming with about 12m tonnes of SO₂ per year - a significant cooling effect.
However, critics say that SAI is not a substitute for cutting emissions and could have catastrophic consequences if deployed without proper governance. "We disagree," argue the researchers. Careful research, not reckless proposals, can clarify whether SAI could ever be used safely and effectively.
To achieve this, scientists propose a structured research programme - similar to clinical trials in medicine. This would involve:
Phase one: Releasing tiny amounts of SO₂ into the stratosphere, carefully measuring its evolution using instruments such as aircraft, ground-based and satellite.
Phase two: Scaling up the experiment to 10 or 100 times larger, studying how aerosols mix and distribute, and observing their impact on the environment.
Phase three: Small, deliberate cooling over several years under constant observation and strict oversight - if deemed safe, this could be a key step towards deployment.
To make such a future decision possible, researchers emphasize building tools, rules, and governance mechanisms now, not later.
That's what we're really looking for here. It's like thinking the solution to climate change is just a really cool superpower that we can activate at will. Newsflash: it's not that simple. I get that we need some kind of plan, but this one feels like a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. We should be focusing on cutting emissions and transitioning to renewable energy, not trying to defuse the situation with a massive sunblock. That being said, if it's going to happen, let's at least try to do it right, you know? A structured research program? That sounds like a good place to start. Can't hurt to try, I guess. 
, but also kinda interesting. I mean, we've already seen how sulfur dioxide can cool the planet in 1991, so it's not like this is completely new 
. But scaling up that amount to actually make a difference? That's a whole other story 
.
. That's like saying we could save the planet from climate change with a truckload of sulfur dioxide every day 
. But on the flip side, critics say it's not a substitute for cutting emissions and that SAI is super unpredictable 
.
. Building tools, rules, and governance mechanisms now to ensure this tech can be used safely is genius 
. And if they can get it right, who knows? Maybe we'll see some serious cooling effects 
. But for real, 2024 being the first full year over 1.5C hotter than the average? That's just terrifying 
.
.
:
.
. We need to have those tough conversations about governance and safety protocols ASAP. Can't just slap a Band-Aid on the planet's problems 
.
.
President Lyndon B Johnson's science advisers proposing this concept all those years ago... it just goes to show that climate change has been on our radar for a looong time. Now, let's just hope we can get this right 
. Can't they just stick to what they know?! 