What Is Geoengineering, and Why Is It a Controversial Solution to Climate Change?

There was once a time when rising sea levels, record-breaking hurricanes, extreme heat waves and mass climate-induced migrations were merely a threat as scientists warned of the potential fallout of a changing planet. Unfortunately, the warnings have become a reality in much of the world, causing scientists, businesses, governments and entire communities to scramble for a solution. Is geoengineering the key to Earth’s survival?

Many say geoengineering is a promising intervention in combating climate change, while others are wary that it may cause even greater damage than the world is currently experiencing. Likewise, heated debates shed light on the ethical dilemma surrounding its potential use in remedying the climate crisis.

What is Geoengineering?

Geoengineering — also known as climate engineering and climate intervention — is a deliberate, large-scale attempt to counter climate change impacts. During the 1950s, when weather modification was gaining momentum, humans began debating whether it would be possible to manage the climate someday. 

While the notion was met with skepticism during the 1970s, atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen reawakened the idea when he wrote a 2006 op-ed about having to block sunlight to avoid a cataclysmic, climate-induced disaster. Since then, policymakers have seriously considered geoengineering a viable intervention with the right approach. 

There are two types of geoengineering: Solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). SRM geoengineering aims to reflect sunlight into space or release heat from the atmosphere. Techniques typically include stratospheric aerosol injections, replicating volcanic eruptions to cool the Earth. Meanwhile, marine cloud brightening improves reflectivity over the ocean’s surface, while cirrus cloud thinning penetrates high-altitude ice clouds to enable heat to dissipate.

Conversely, CDR methods are comprised of extracting atmospheric carbon dioxide. For instance, scientists improve terrestrial carbon sinks through afforestation and soil sequestration or deploy ocean-based carbon capture systems like direct air capture and bioenergy. Overall, CDR would stabilize temperatures. However, experts remain concerned about its scalability, effectiveness, impacts and feasibility, especially how it will affect land use, agriculture and ecosystem health.

The Promise of Geoengineering

According to a Carbon Brief study of 750 extreme weather events, climate change was responsible for the likelihood or severity of 74% of cases, while 83% were found to have human influence. In other findings, 9.8 million people lived in internal displacement because of natural disasters by the end of 2024.

Climate change also has dire effects on public health. According to a 2016 report from the World Health Organization, environmental risks caused 24% of global mortality that year, equal to 13.7 million people. 

To say the least, the world needs a fast solution. The prospect of geoengineering is becoming increasingly appealing as a tool for cooling a warming planet. Those in favor believe these techniques could buy the world some time as it transitions toward a low-carbon future with fewer fossil fuels. 

In one study, researchers used simulations to determine the potential benefits of SRM technologies to cool the planet by 1° Celsius if the Earth were 2.5° C warmer than before. The computer models suggest that cooling could prevent more than 400,000 deaths annually by 2080. The benefits of planetary cooling would also be 13 times greater than the risks of not cooling. 

Overall, geoengineering might alleviate devastating climate catastrophes, including flood events, sea-level rise and disrupted food systems, which would most benefit vulnerable communities and habitats.

Controversies and Risks of Geoengineering

Although geoengineering has its proponents, several others deem it controversial and too risky. In fact, one study of public perception found that 81% of respondents in Germany viewed this type of climate intervention as very or somewhat risky. Most of the study participants also displayed fear and anxiety over the loss of human control. 

Morally, pursuing geoengineering might slow the pace at which people respond to urgent climate risks by reducing carbon emissions. It might also encourage reckless and irresponsible continuation of carbon-intensive activities. Some people refer to it as “playing God.” 

Of course, these interventions might negatively impact ecosystems through increased climate disruptions on a regional scale. The lack of governance and international agreements may also induce global conflicts. Likewise, the technology’s effectiveness and cost also raise questions.

In general, the world does not know enough about geoengineering, its potential and the negative consequences of deploying these technologies. Therefore, due diligence and careful consideration are imperative. 

Geoengineering and Climate Justice

Deploying geoengineering climate interventions, such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, could change weather patterns. However, this might disproportionately affect different global regions by making some areas wetter or drier than others.

Vulnerable populations may struggle to adapt, especially if they rely on resources susceptible to these potential outcomes. For example, SRM aerosol injections may alter precipitation patterns, stressing agriculture and water availability in regions already facing arid conditions. Likewise, ocean fertilization may impact food security in coastal communities by harming fisheries. 

Without extensive research and governance, the world would witness vaster marginalization and inequities, leaving many more communities to bear the brunt of the climate crisis.

The Future of Geoengineering

Despite pushback, geoengineering research is ongoing, including expanding upon what is already known about SRM and CDR methods. However, its inclusion in important climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, remains contentious. While some suggest it should complement other climate action, others think it will detract from progress. 

The World Economic Forum has outlined several steps to make climate intervention viable. For instance, researchers should expand their studies on the direct risks and examine the widespread environmental, economic, social and geopolitical consequences. They must also determine whether this approach would shift the worst climate change impacts from one group to another.

Including the public in these discussions and processes is equally important, as is maintaining transparency. Additionally, governments must develop stringent policies to guide the development and deployment of geoengineering research.

Geoengineering Is a Band-Aid for Climate Change

Altering climate change impacts through geoengineering sounds like a good idea on the surface. However, these technologies are merely a band-aid and do not address the root causes. Instead, the world should focus its attention on sound climate solutions like curbing emissions and transitioning to clean energy solutions.