• From left: Oliver Morton, Alan Robock, Daniel Schrag, David Keith and Stephen Gardiner

    From left: Oliver Morton, Alan Robock, Daniel Schrag, David Keith and Stephen Gardiner

    Photo: Alli Gold Roberts

    Full Screen
  • Some of the dangers of solar geoengineering include degradation of the ozone layer and changes in rainfall patterns.

    Some of the dangers of solar geoengineering include degradation of the ozone layer and changes in rainfall patterns.

    Photo: Art_es_anna/Flickr

    Full Screen

Future of solar geoengineering far from settled

From left: Oliver Morton, Alan Robock, Daniel Schrag, David Keith and Stephen Gardiner

MIT event brings together geoengineering experts to debate the use of solar radiation management for preventing climate change.

At “Debating the Future of Solar Geoengineering,” a debate hosted last week by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, four leading thinkers in geoengineering laid out their perspectives on doctoring our atmosphere to prevent climate change.

The debate featured Stephen Gardiner of the University of Washington, David Keith and Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, and Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Oliver Morton from The Economist ran the show as a deft and witty moderator.

The debate focused on the easiest, fastest and cheapest geoengineering option on the table: solar radiation management. This technique would involve intentionally injecting sulfate aerosols into Earth’s upper atmosphere, the stratosphere. These aerosols, which are the same particles released by volcanic eruptions, would reflect sunlight away from Earth, cool the planet, and, in theory, stabilize climate.

While climate modeling shows that solar radiation management would reduce risks for some people, there are a number of reasons why this technique might be a bad idea, Robock said. For instance, pumping particles into the stratosphere could shift rainfall patterns and chew up the ozone layer, thus tinkering with the amount of water and UV light reaching human and ecological systems. “We are going to put the entire fate of the only planet we know that can sustain life on this one technical intervention that may go wrong?” he challenged.

Robock’s stance is what Keith called “the very common, intuitive, and healthy reaction that geoengineering is ‘nuts’ and we should just get on with cutting emissions.” But Keith and Shrag systematically picked the argument apart as they made the case that, even in the most optimistic of scenarios, we may not be able to solve the climate problem by acting on greenhouse gas emissions alone. For them, geoengineering is a real option.

Humans are burning enough fossil fuels to put 36 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. And because the gas stays in the atmosphere for incredibly long time periods, we’re already committed to global warming far into the future. “Climate is going to get a lot worse before it gets better,” Shrag said. “We have to push for emissions reductions, but the world is going to put a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and we better figure out what to do about it.”

But solar radiation management, Keith and Gardiner agreed, would not be ethical in the absence of a simultaneous reduction in CO2 emissions. As computer simulations by University of Washington researchers indicate, if we were to inject aerosols for a time, while continuing to emit CO2 as usual, a sudden cessation of the technique for any reason would be disastrous. The aerosols would quickly fall to natural levels, and the planet would warm at a pace far too rapid for humans, ecosystems and crops to adapt.

“So if, as a result of decisions to implement solar engineering to reduce risks now, we do less to cut emissions and emit more than we otherwise would, then we are morally responsible for passing risk on to future generations,” said Keith.

Caveats to geoengineering continued to roll in during the debate’s Q&A session. The technique would likely end up a dangerous catch-22 in the real world, according to Kyle Armour, a postdoc in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences: “The case can be made that the times we would be most likely to use solar radiation management, such as in a climate emergency, are precisely the times when it would be most dangerous to do so.” In essence, implementing geoengineering to tackle an unforeseen environmental disaster would entail a rushed response to a misunderstood climate system with uncertain technology.

The post-debate reception was abuzz with conversations about the issue. Several MIT graduate students noted that the debaters never touched upon the most fundamental research needed to evaluate the viability of geoengineering: aerosol effects on clouds.

Aerosols in the stratosphere do reflect sunlight and exert a cooling effect on Earth. “But they have to go somewhere,” said MIT’s Dan Cziczo, an associate professor of atmospheric chemistry who studies how aerosols, clouds and solar radiation interact in Earth’s atmosphere. “Particles fall down into the troposphere where they can have many other effects on cloud formation, which have not been sorted out. They could cancel out any cooling we achieve, cool more than we anticipate, or even create warming.”

Indeed, the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report lists aerosol effects on clouds as the largest uncertainty in the climate system. “I don’t understand why you would attempt to undo the highly certain warming effect of greenhouse gases with the thing we are the least certain about,” Cziczo said.

The panelists acknowledged that scientists don’t understand the technique’s potential effects well enough to geoengineer today — but they have no plans to give up hope. Keith noted a need for a memorandum laying out principles of transparency and risk-assessment, as well as vastly expanded research programs for geoengineering. “Before we go full scale,” Keith said, as the debate came to a close, “we have to broaden far beyond the small clique of today’s geoengineering thinkers, but that doesn’t have to take decades.”

Topics: Climate, Climate change, Greenhouse gases, Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Oceans at MIT, Special events and guest speakers


Please scrap Aerosol injection as a means to curb CO2. We have seen already what the experiments effects have been having on us with the daily Aerosol spraying being done in the skies above us via aircraft. I am 44 years old and lived in the same place all of my life. I know my sky.Increased coverage of our skies and acceleration over the past few years.Tests are already occurring.The nano-particulate fallout effects on our health,honey bee populations and plant life are apparent but my biggest grievance is the 'sun block'. Over Vancouver Island we are hammered by Aerosols, we have have less and less sunlight(an exception this summer,the sunniest we have seen in years?).In the article above the geo-engineers say that they have not gone full scale? Imagine a new 'DARK AGE'. Very depressing.I'd ask the geo-engineers to please go outside more often. Many more of us including ex-premier Bill Vander Zalm know about and question SAG.There has to be a better way.Got Brains?

Human intervension , quickfix its ? I am deeply conserned with star wars global impact thinking and thereafter action made by ????

Please, these programs have been in action for a very long time. The difference? Their arrogance of going ahead with their plans have finally caught up with them and they have to come out in the open. The insanity is that people are still gullible enough to believe the lies. David Kieth is a psychopath that is infatuated with his "godlike" powers and the money from Bill Gates that keeps him rambling on 100 mph how this is our only option.Ask yourself, who benefits from the Arctic melting and being able to keep burning fossil fuels?

To discuss these programs as if they have not already been occurring is deceving. Maybe some of you truly believe the "official narrative," which totally ignores the blatant and readily available evidence, but I believe some of you most certainly know that you are deceiving your viewers intentionally. I can only speculate as to your motives for doing this and whether you believe them to be moral or not, but it is time for the deception to come to an end. Truth about this subject and how it has been going on over our heads for years clandestinely needs to be addressed honestly so that the discussion about how we are going deal with the harmful effects of these programs on our bodies and environment can begin. We need to to quit adding fuel to the fire immediately, you and I both know it. These programs need to end and we need honest people addressing it, not obfuscating the issue.

Back to the top