As global warming intensifies and more harsh weather patterns rages, thermal geoengineering takes more attention from the governments and firms.They explore climate geoengineering as a supposed “solution” to global warming. However geoengineering still faces harsh skepticism. Geoengineering refers to large or planetary-scale interventions in the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and land to counteract some of the effects of climate change. The most well-known large-scale geoengineering which is feasible, at least on paper, is to add reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back to space. These particles (sulfur oxide, or metal powders) would work as tiny mirrors which prevent sunlight from entering the surface of the earth. The proponents claim that this is much cheaper than developing a green economy with zero emissions.
Other geoengineering theories include slowing ice melt by pumping seawater into polar and glacial ice to thicken it, spreading billions of tiny reflective beads on the surface of the Arctic or glacial ice to increase its reflectivity, and building a giant curtain in the ocean to block warmer waters.
However, all geoengineering methods have significant hazards and unknowns, and they offer nothing to address the causes of the climate catastrophe. For instance, solar geoengineering is prone to unpredictability and runs the danger of making an already unstable climate system even more unstable. According to models, it may worsen climate change in nations at the forefront of the problem and have an unequal regional impact. Furthermore, if deployment is halted or slowed for any reason, there is a chance of “termination shock,” in which temperatures abruptly rise. At the same time, no marine carbon dioxide removal method has been shown to be successful in removing and storing CO2 over the long term, and some methods may make it more difficult for the ocean to sequester carbon.
Furthermore, by its very nature, it’s difficult to evaluate geoengineering technologies for their intended influence on the climate without large-scale outside deployment, by which time any adverse and potentially irreversible repercussions would be locked in. Studies demonstrating theoretical advantages frequently employ highly idealized models that minimize negative effects and the possibility that deployment might not go as intended in practice. Small-scale outdoor tests only aid in the development of technologies and run the danger of becoming unsuitable for deployment.
Source: center for international environmental law
