Countries in Crisis May Unilaterally Hack the Global Climate

The landmark Paris climate accord sparked a rallying cry among developing nations: “1.5 to survive.” This signifies the global goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.8 Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. However, it’s anticipated that this threshold will be exceeded within the next decade, with global warming showing minimal signs of abating.

The world is currently witnessing unprecedented natural disasters due to rising temperatures.

Heat records are regularly being shattered, wildfire seasons are becoming more extreme, and the strength of hurricanes is on the rise. Additionally, sea level rise is gradually engulfing small island nations and coastal regions.

Possible Approach to Rapidly Mitigate Rising Temperatures

One potential solution to rapidly curb this temperature increase is through climate engineering, also known as geoengineering or solar climate intervention. This involves deliberate actions to modify the climate, such as replicating the cooling effects of major volcanic eruptions by releasing large amounts of reflective particles into the atmosphere or brightening low clouds over the ocean. Both approaches aim to reflect a portion of sunlight back into space to cool the planet.

However, intentionally manipulating the climate raises numerous unanswered questions regarding its consequences, and there is no consensus on whether pursuing such measures is advisable.

One of the primary worries for numerous nations regarding climate change revolves around national security. This extends beyond conventional warfare. Threats to food, energy, and water resources are deemed national security concerns, along with climate-induced migration.

Could climate engineering alleviate the national security threats posed by climate change, or would it exacerbate them? Addressing this query is complex, but researchers specializing in climate change and national security, like ourselves, possess some insight into the forthcoming risks.

The immense issue of climate change

To comprehend the potential future of climate engineering, let’s begin by discussing the motivations behind why a nation might consider pursuing it.

Since the onset of the industrial revolution, humanity has emitted approximately 1.74 trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, primarily through the combustion of fossil fuels.

This carbon dioxide acts as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, leading to global warming.

One crucial action we must take is to cease the emission of carbon into the atmosphere.

However, due to the longevity of carbon in the atmosphere, this alone will not provide immediate improvement, as carbon remains present for centuries. Decreasing emissions will merely prevent the situation from worsening.

Nations have the capability to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it, a procedure known as carbon dioxide removal. Presently, carbon dioxide removal initiatives, such as afforestation efforts and direct air capture technologies, withdraw approximately 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually.

Nonetheless, humans are presently emitting more than 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year due to fossil fuel consumption and industrial activities. As long as the quantity emitted exceeds the amount removed, the severity of climate change effects such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, heatwaves, and rising sea levels will continue to escalate.

Achieving “net-zero” emissions, where human activities do not contribute to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, may take considerable time. Climate engineering could potentially offer assistance during this transitional period.

Who could potentially undertake climate engineering and by what means?

Government research entities are investigating potential scenarios for climate engineering, assessing potential actors and methods.

While climate engineering may offer cost-effective solutions compared to halting greenhouse gas emissions, it demands significant investment and time for technology development.

Despite portrayals in science fiction, billionaires would quickly deplete their resources if they pursued such endeavors.

Nevertheless, individual nations or coalitions observing climate change impacts may independently pursue climate engineering after evaluating costs and geopolitical implications.

This raises the “free driver” issue, where a country with ample resources could unilaterally influence global climate.

For instance, nations experiencing severe heatwaves may seek cooling strategies, while those dependent on monsoon rainfall may aim to restore disrupted predictability. Currently, Australia is exploring options to rapidly cool the Great Barrier Reef to mitigate its decline.

Provoking concerns among neighboring countries about potential conflicts due to increased risks

The climate disregards national boundaries. Therefore, a climate engineering initiative in one nation is bound to impact the temperature and precipitation patterns in neighboring countries.

This could have varying effects on agriculture, water resources, and flood vulnerability, potentially resulting in widespread unintended repercussions.

Certain research suggests that employing a moderate level of climate engineering could potentially yield broad advantages in contrast to the impacts of climate change. However, the effects may vary across different countries.

After the implementation of climate engineering, nations might tend to attribute extreme events like hurricanes, floods, and droughts to climate engineering, irrespective of factual evidence.

This could potentially trigger conflicts among countries, resulting in sanctions and calls for reparations. It’s crucial to consider that climate change disproportionately affects the most impoverished regions, and any deployment of climate engineering should not worsen their vulnerability.

Certain countries stand to gain from climate engineering, potentially increasing their resilience to geopolitical tensions, while others may suffer harm, heightening their vulnerability.

Thus far, no one has implemented large-scale climate engineering, leading to a significant dependency on climate models to comprehend its effects.

However effective these models may be for studying the climate system, they lack the capability to address inquiries concerning geopolitics and conflict. Additionally, the outcomes of climate engineering initiatives are contingent upon the entities undertaking them and the specific methods employed.

What comes after this?

Currently, the realm of climate engineering raises more questions than it provides answers. It remains uncertain whether such interventions would exacerbate conflicts or potentially alleviate international tensions by mitigating climate change effects.

Nevertheless, international deliberations on climate engineering are imminent. During the United Nations Environment Assembly in March 2024, African nations advocated for a moratorium on climate engineering, emphasizing the need for caution. Conversely, other countries, such as the United States, advocated for the establishment of a formal scientific body to assess the risks and benefits before any decisions are made.

While climate engineering could potentially contribute to an equitable resolution to climate change, it also carries inherent risks. In essence, climate engineering represents a technology that cannot be disregarded, but its implementation requires further research to enable policymakers to make well-informed decisions.

Read the original article on: Science Alert

Read more: Climate Change: ‘Sand Battery’ Can Fix Environment-Friendly Energy’s Significant Problem