Climate Geoengineering: The Unsettling Conundrum of Transparency
As the world teeters on the brink of catastrophic climate change, a growing number of experts are proposing a radical solution: solar geoengineering. This involves deliberately reflecting sunlight to cool the planet, with proponents arguing it could provide a vital lifeline if temperatures continue to soar out of control. However, critics warn of unknown risks and argue that the approach is a distraction from meaningful climate action.
Research into solar geoengineering is advancing rapidly, including the exploration of techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. While these technologies are being studied with increasing urgency in the global north, they remain largely invisible to public discourse and policymaking in the global south. This is a stark reminder that climate change disproportionately affects low-income countries, where rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and altered rainfall patterns threaten food, water, and health security.
The risks of solar geoengineering are far from clear-cut. While some areas may benefit from reduced temperatures, others could suffer severe consequences, such as altered rainfall patterns or ecological shifts. Comprehensive research is needed to determine who would benefit and who would be harmed, but failing to do so inclusively could lead to geopolitical tensions and exacerbate climate injustice.
Governments in the global south are facing a daunting challenge: most have not taken a public stance on solar geoengineering, research funding is scarce, and public debate is nonexistent. This has resulted in a growing gap in knowledge, capacity, and influence, leaving southern nations vulnerable to manipulation by powerful interests.
However, experts argue that including the global south in conversations about climate geoengineering is not only urgent but also possible. Southern scientists have valuable insights and worldviews that can inform global decisions about solar geoengineering. Excluding them risks repeating colonial-era dynamics that have historically shaped climate policy: solutions designed for us but not with us.
There are signs of constructive change emerging, including initiatives to fund scientists from the global south to study solar geoengineering's impact on their regions. However, such efforts remain small and under-resourced compared to the scale of the challenge.
To move forward effectively, we need public research led by institutions in the global south, research networks rooted in southern universities, funding that supports south-south collaboration, and a global governance framework that ensures equity, transparency, and informed consent. Engagement with solar geoengineering does not necessarily mean endorsement; it means empowering ourselves to ask critical questions, assess potential benefits and risks, take part in policy discussions rooted in local realities, and challenge decisions made elsewhere.
Ultimately, solar geoengineering is not a solution to the climate crisis but rather a temporary bandage that may mask symptoms without addressing the underlying causes. Ignoring this technology won't make it go away; if it's ever considered as part of a planetary emergency response, we must ensure transparency and accountability.
As Dr Ines Camilloni, an IPCC Working Group vice-chair, notes, any effort to correct the course of our planet after generations of pollution must be debated in the light of evidence. Climate justice demands a transparent approach that prioritizes the voices and perspectives of all nations, particularly those on the frontlines of climate change.
As the world teeters on the brink of catastrophic climate change, a growing number of experts are proposing a radical solution: solar geoengineering. This involves deliberately reflecting sunlight to cool the planet, with proponents arguing it could provide a vital lifeline if temperatures continue to soar out of control. However, critics warn of unknown risks and argue that the approach is a distraction from meaningful climate action.
Research into solar geoengineering is advancing rapidly, including the exploration of techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection and marine cloud brightening. While these technologies are being studied with increasing urgency in the global north, they remain largely invisible to public discourse and policymaking in the global south. This is a stark reminder that climate change disproportionately affects low-income countries, where rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and altered rainfall patterns threaten food, water, and health security.
The risks of solar geoengineering are far from clear-cut. While some areas may benefit from reduced temperatures, others could suffer severe consequences, such as altered rainfall patterns or ecological shifts. Comprehensive research is needed to determine who would benefit and who would be harmed, but failing to do so inclusively could lead to geopolitical tensions and exacerbate climate injustice.
Governments in the global south are facing a daunting challenge: most have not taken a public stance on solar geoengineering, research funding is scarce, and public debate is nonexistent. This has resulted in a growing gap in knowledge, capacity, and influence, leaving southern nations vulnerable to manipulation by powerful interests.
However, experts argue that including the global south in conversations about climate geoengineering is not only urgent but also possible. Southern scientists have valuable insights and worldviews that can inform global decisions about solar geoengineering. Excluding them risks repeating colonial-era dynamics that have historically shaped climate policy: solutions designed for us but not with us.
There are signs of constructive change emerging, including initiatives to fund scientists from the global south to study solar geoengineering's impact on their regions. However, such efforts remain small and under-resourced compared to the scale of the challenge.
To move forward effectively, we need public research led by institutions in the global south, research networks rooted in southern universities, funding that supports south-south collaboration, and a global governance framework that ensures equity, transparency, and informed consent. Engagement with solar geoengineering does not necessarily mean endorsement; it means empowering ourselves to ask critical questions, assess potential benefits and risks, take part in policy discussions rooted in local realities, and challenge decisions made elsewhere.
Ultimately, solar geoengineering is not a solution to the climate crisis but rather a temporary bandage that may mask symptoms without addressing the underlying causes. Ignoring this technology won't make it go away; if it's ever considered as part of a planetary emergency response, we must ensure transparency and accountability.
As Dr Ines Camilloni, an IPCC Working Group vice-chair, notes, any effort to correct the course of our planet after generations of pollution must be debated in the light of evidence. Climate justice demands a transparent approach that prioritizes the voices and perspectives of all nations, particularly those on the frontlines of climate change.
️ I think it's super important we involve more countries from the south in these discussions about geoengineering 'cause they're already feeling the heat 
. It's not like they're just victims here; their scientists are actually super valuable when it comes to understanding how this tech could affect their regions 
. We can't just assume that developed nations know what's best for everyone 
. And honestly, if we don't get better at sharing the knowledge and power, solar geoengineering might just become a tool for the rich to control the weather without even asking the poor 
. It's time to level up our global climate conversations 
.
. It sounds like they're trying to play god and mess with our planet's chemistry without even considering the consequences. I mean, what if it works but in a way that ruins some other ecosystem or causes more problems than it solves? We can't just throw money at a problem without thinking about how it'll affect everyone.
. It sounds like this geoengineering thing is just another example of that. We should be focusing on reducing our carbon footprint and using renewable energy sources, not messing around with some fancy tech that we don't fully understand.
if we're not careful we'll end up causing more harm than good and ignoring the people who are most affected by climate change is just plain wrong 
)
)
)
)]
. we need to challenge decisions made elsewhere by engaging in policy discussions rooted in local realities 
. and transparency is key - who gets informed consent? 
. let's focus on solutions that prioritize justice and equity 
. we can't just rely on "temporal bandages" without a solid plan for the future 
.
. we need to make sure that southern nations have a voice in these conversations 