Janice R. Andrews
Plans to darken the Sun have alarmed critics, but one of its most ardent and contentious supporters is resisting. Despite strong resistance, David Keith, a geophysical scientist at the University of Chicago, is a proponent of solar geoengineering as a means of addressing climate change.
Keith said in an interview with the New York Times that those who are against his plan to mitigate the consequences of climate change with sulfur dioxide are exaggerating the dangers. Keith said, “There are risks, and there are uncertainties, for sure.” “But there’s really a lot of evidence that the risks are quantitatively small compared to the benefits, and the uncertainties just aren’t that big.”
There is history for solar geoengineering, which releases sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere in an attempt to deflect sunlight and lower global temperatures. Keith used the example of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. The next year saw a reduction in world temperature of almost one degree Celsius as a result of the eruption’s vast cloud of ash and particles that was thrown into the stratosphere.
In spite of these empirical evidences, critics of solar geoengineering identify a number of issues. The main topics of discussion are potential unforeseen effects and ethical issues. Critics are concerned about the possible unintended negative impacts and the ramifications of changing the Earth’s climate system.
Keith is not the first to encounter opposition. In 2018, he organized a tiny experiment to scatter a few pounds of mineral dust across Arizona when he was a research scientist at Harvard. Local Indigenous groups fiercely opposed the idea, claiming it was a risky band-aid solution to the underlying causes of climate change. Greta Thunberg, a well-known climate activist, was also against the experiment, which is why Harvard cancelled it.
Frank Keutsch, a scientist and former partner on the Harvard experiment, is one prominent opponent of Keith’s findings. Keutsch has raised worries about the possibility of solar geoengineering addiction, drawing parallels with opiate usage. During a recent argument, Keutsch stated, “They only treat the symptom and not the actual cause.” If you don’t truly treat the cause, you might develop an addiction to it. Additionally, you will have side effects just as with any other medication. After that, withdrawal symptoms occur, which is termination shock.
These objections highlight the debate over solar geoengineering’s complexity and high risks. But Keith isn’t giving up easily. He thinks that solar geoengineering might have far greater advantages than disadvantages and that it is a strategy that should be carefully considered. He draws attention to the possibility that political pressure, particularly from chemtrails-related organizations, might obstruct future technological progress.
Keith told the New York Times, “The rationalist case for solar geo is looking stronger, so I’m more motivated even now to push on it.” “While there are still lots of strong individual voices of opposition, there are a lot of people in serious policy positions that are taking it seriously, and that’s really exciting.”
The discussion around solar geoengineering is probably going to go on as long as climate change is a major worldwide concern. Critics warn of the dangers and moral ramifications of novel solutions, while supporters like Keith argue for their potential advantages. The conclusion of this discussion will influence future methods for tackling climate change and how we handle the planet’s rising temperatures.
