Blocking the sun’s rays to limit global warming has long been considered too dangerous to even study. But 60 top scientists are breaking from their colleagues and calling for research into what they call solar radiation modification, writes POLITICO’s E&E News reporter Corbin Hiar. The method involves spraying aerosol particles into the atmosphere that would reflect sunlight away from the Earth, thereby slowing warming. The group includes former NASA director James Hansen, who first warned Congress about the dangers of climate change in 1988. In an open letter published Monday, the scientists make clear that they are not supporting the method as a climate change fix, but rather arguing for more studies and field experiments to assess its viability. After all, cutting planet-warming pollution alone is no longer sufficient, they say. “While reducing emissions is crucial, no level of reduction undertaken now can reverse the warming effect of past and present greenhouse gas emissions,” write the scientists, led by Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington. They call for a “rigorous, rapid scientific assessment” of how the technology would work and its potential downsides. Advocates of climate action, including many scientists, have long worried that advancing fledgling geoengineering techniques like sucking carbon from the atmosphere or blocking the sun’s rays could distract from enacting tough policies to curb carbon pollution. But as heat waves, wildfires, floods and other climate-fueled disasters are growing more common and severe, some scientists and policymakers are exploring last-ditch efforts to cool the planet before rising temperatures trigger catastrophic, irreversible changes to ice sheets, ecosystems and vulnerable communities. Not everyone agrees that’s a good idea. Last year, a separate group of researchers penned a letter — which now has more than 370 signatures from scientists in over 50 countries — calling for an international agreement to ban solar geoengineering and related state-sponsored research. The researchers argue that the technology risks becoming a “powerful argument for industry lobbyists, climate denialists, and some governments” to delay cutting greenhouse gas emissions. They also say that coordinating a global agreement on how, when and where the technology should be used would be a geopolitical nightmare. Without a democratic and equitable framework, countries with the knowledge, resources and influence could end up calling all the shots. The disagreement within the scientific community underscores the high-stakes nature of the climate crisis: The world needs to stop producing planet-warming pollution. And that’s just not happening fast enough.
| 
Comments
Post a Comment