Geoengineering the Climate
- Jana Perez-Angelo
- 7 days ago
- 7 min read
Who Decides, Who Pays, and Who Bears the Risk?
As wildfires burn with unprecedented intensity, heat waves strain power grids, and droughts disrupt food systems, one thing has become painfully clear: Humanity may be running out of time. Despite decades of warnings, summits, and pledges, according to organizations like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, humankind is failing to curb global emissions at the pace required to stave off increasing climate crisis. The window to avoid catastrophic climate disruption is narrowing, they say, and with it, public conversations are beginning to entertain once-unthinkable ideas.
Enter geoengineering, the bold and controversial concept of deliberately manipulating Earth’s climate systems to counteract global warming. Once relegated to the realm of dystopian fiction, geoengineering is now being debated in scientific journals, government meetings, and even corporate boardrooms.
From creating vast clouds of sun-reflective particles in the atmosphere to building Brazil-sized space mirrors or installing underwater curtains beneath the polar ice, these climate intervention strategies are moving from speculative concepts to real research programs.
Some see them as humanity’s last-ditch safety net. Others warn they’re a dangerous gamble, one that could trigger unintended and irreversible consequences—or act like “climate methadone” that, if stopped, would send the Earth into a catastrophic “termination shock,” as explained in The Guardian.
At the heart of this growing debate lie deeper questions: not just what can be done, but what should be done and who gets to decide.
Engineering the Sky
Among the most discussed proposals is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). This method involves injecting sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, which reacts with water vapor to form tiny reflective particles of hydrogen sulfate to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. It’s inspired by natural phenomena. For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed millions of tons of ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures to drop by 0.5°C (about 1°F) for more than a year.
SAI is not the only idea on the table. Scientists are also researching:
Marine cloud brightening, which involves spraying seawater into the air to whiten clouds and increase their reflectivity.
Space-based reflectors, in which giant mirrors orbiting Earth deflect solar radiation before it even enters the atmosphere.
Underwater ice curtains, which aim to slow the melting of polar ice by blocking warm ocean currents.
Several field tests have already begun. Marine cloud brightening has seen small-scale experimentation, while SAI remains under theoretical and lab-scale study due to its immense risk and global ramifications, says Prof. Clive Hamilton, an ethicist at Charles Sturt University in Canberra, Australia, and author of the book Earthmasters.
Can Human Beings Actually Do This?
Technically, some methods are feasible, at least on paper. SAI could be deployed using aircraft, balloons, or even high-altitude drones. But the real challenge lies in controlling the outcome. How much to inject? Where? How often? And how will it affect different parts of the world?
The “brute reality” is that solar geoengineering “does seem to provide a significant way to reduce climate risk at very low cost [and] is going to be very powerful,” said David Keith, PhD, professor of geophysical science at the University of Chicago and one of the leading researchers in solar geoengineering.
“I think it’s going to be hard to stop people from rushing to do it,” he adds.
However, despite the appeal of Earth-engineering methods, critics say the techniques won’t solve carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, or economic inequality.
“SAI could potentially reduce the amount of global heating and some of the changes in extreme events that it brings,” Prof. Hamilton said in an interview with The Earth & I.
But “it has all kinds of risks, and it will not reduce acidification of the oceans” or slow CO2 accumulation, which he says is the real root of the problem. In other words, geoengineering might cool the planet, but it won’t reverse the centuries of damage already done.
Meanwhile, private companies are jumping ahead. Startups like Make Sunsets have already launched test flights releasing sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere without public input, international oversight, or scientific review. This kind of unregulated experimentation has drawn sharp criticism from environmental groups, ethicists, and international organizations.
Promises vs. Reality
At first glance, geoengineering seems like a tempting fix. In theory, it could lower temperatures quickly, potentially preventing the collapse of key ecosystems and reducing the severity of extreme weather events, said the Columbia Climate School.
But those benefits won’t be evenly shared. Geoengineering could create winners and losers. A cooling effect that benefits crops in one region might bring devastating droughts to another. The same intervention that reduces hurricanes might disrupt vital rainfall patterns elsewhere.
“Indigenous peoples, peasants, fisherfolks, and rural communities are among those on the front lines of impacts from geoengineering experimentation and deployment, and their perspectives are under-represented in research, discourse, and decision-making,” said the Center for International Environmental Law in a 2024 report.
In addition, no current geoengineering method addresses ocean acidification, a silent crisis caused by excess CO₂ being absorbed by seawater. This threatens marine ecosystems, coral reefs, and the entire ocean food chain. So, while the planet might cool, the oceans could still die.
And once geoengineering starts, it may need to continue for decades or even centuries. Sudden termination whether due to war, economic collapse, or political upheaval could cause global temperatures to spike rapidly, triggering what some scientists call “termination shock.”
Earth scientists often use computer models to predict how the planet will react to particular variables, such as atmospheric CO2 buildup or sulfate particles in the air from geoengineering. But “it is impossible to capture all the likely effects in a model, no matter how sophisticated,” Prof. Hamilton told The Earth & I. “And tests can only provide some evidence. We would only discover the unintended effects of SAI with full-scale implementation—and even then, it might take a decade before we have a good idea.”
Who Controls the Thermostat?
Perhaps the most complex question isn’t “Can we?” but “Who gets to decide?”
Imagine this: One country—such as a wealthy, climate-vulnerable nation—decides to go ahead with solar geoengineering. It has the money, the technology, and the political will. But in doing so, it inadvertently disrupts rainfall patterns in another country, triggering crop failure and famine.
What happens next? Without a global governance system, one country’s decision could spark conflict or even war. Not only that, warns the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, but geoengineering could be weaponized to attack enemy nations or extort concessions from them.
Solar engineering “makes me nervous because mega-solutions typically have not tended to work as planned,” Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School Sheila Jasanoff said in 2015.
“There are many things one can get wrong in modeling large-scale projects, and also those mega-solutions are often very difficult to govern and quite anti-democratic,” she said.
In a world already grappling with distrust, inequality, and geopolitical instability, the idea of a single nation or billionaire tech mogul controlling the global climate is deeply troubling to many.
Ethics on a Global Scale
At its core, geoengineering is not just a scientific issue, it’s a moral one, according to many observers. Who has the right, or even the ability, to decide the fate of Earth’s climate? Should a handful of researchers, governments, or corporations be allowed to experiment with atmospheric systems that affect everyone? What about the rights of Indigenous communities, future generations, and nonhuman life?
The United Nations Environment Programme released a 2023 report titled “One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment.” It called for global consent, inclusive dialogue, and transparent governance before any form of solar radiation modification is attempted. And even then, the models are limited. Climate systems are incredibly complex and interconnected. Unintended consequences may become apparent only decades later when it’s too late to reverse them.
Still, some argue that the world can’t wait and that the greatest risk may be doing nothing at all. But the National Academies of Sciences and other leading institutions advocate a middle path: Invest in research and governance now but hold off on deployment until the world has proper systems in place to manage the consequences collectively.
“While geoengineering holds promise for mitigating some of the worst impacts of climate change, it also raises profound risks and ethical concerns.”
Geoengineering is slowly but surely entering the mainstream, fueled by fear, urgency, and technological ambition. But it comes at a cost, not just in dollars, but in trust, sovereignty, and the fragile balance of the planet’s ecosystems. As summarized by the Live to Plant website, “While geoengineering holds promise for mitigating some of the worst impacts of climate change, it also raises profound risks and ethical concerns. These range from environmental uncertainties and geopolitical tensions to moral questions about human intervention in nature.”
Ultimately, as the climate clock ticks louder, the real question may not be whether humankind can fix the sky but whether societies should engineer their way out of a crisis they engineered themselves into.
*Jana Perez-Angelo is a Denver-based writer and multidisciplinary creative and digital strategist passionate about brand storytelling and purpose-driven content. Her work has been featured in Relevant Magazine, Medium, and Faithful Life.
Comments