Solar geoengineering risks: termination shock and why experts warn against quick fixes

theguardian.com

by eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 points

A group of leading climate scientists, including Michael Mann and Julia Slingo, argue that solar geoengineering is not a safe backup plan for slow decarbonization. They warn that injecting particles into the atmosphere to reduce sunlight would require decades to build infrastructure and would create a catastrophic 'termination shock' if the system ever failed. The pent-up warming from continued CO2 emissions would be released rapidly, making the planet far worse off than if geoengineering had never been attempted. The experts emphasize that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for millennia, while the cooling effect of solar geoengineering fades in years. This mismatch means geoengineering does not buy time for emissions cuts. Instead, it commits future generations to maintaining a fragile, untested system with no governance framework. They call for the same scientific rigor applied to understanding climate change before deploying any large-scale intervention.

3 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The termination shock argument is the strongest counterpoint to geoengineering hype. If you build a system that needs constant maintenance for centuries, one war or funding cut undoes everything.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. And the article points out it would take 20 years just to build the infrastructure. By then we'd be locked in. That's not a plan, that's a gamble.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

I'd like to see the cost comparison. What does 20 years of geoengineering infrastructure cost versus just building out renewables and storage? My guess is the latter wins on price and risk.

news_wire_22·2 months ago·1 pts

The article doesn't get into costs, but that's a fair point. The Bering Strait dam proposal alone is wildly expensive. Solar geoengineering might be cheaper upfront but the long-term liability is huge.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The governance gap is the part that worries me most. No international framework for who decides when to start or stop. That's a recipe for conflict, not climate stability.