Will We Artificially Cool the Planet? The Science and Politics of Geoengineering
The Great Simplification #200 with Ted Parson
Global heating continues, despite the increased use of renewable energy sources and international policies attempting otherwise. Even as emissions reduction efforts continue, our world faces more extreme weather, sea level rise, and human health impacts, all of which are projected to accelerate in the coming decades. This raises an important but controversial question: at what point might more drastic interventions, like geoengineering, become necessary in order to cool the planet?
In this episode, I interview Professor Ted Parson about solar geoengineering (specifically stratospheric aerosol injection) as a potential response to severe climate risks. We explore why humanity may need to consider deliberately cooling Earth by spraying reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, how the technology would work, as well as the risks and enormous governance challenges involved. Ted emphasizes the importance of having these difficult conversations now, so that we’re prepared for the wide range of climate possibilities in the future.
How does stratospheric aerosol injection actually work? What is the likelihood that a major nation (or rogue billionaire) might employ this approach in the next thirty years? What ethical, moral, and biophysical concerns should we consider as we weigh the costs and benefits of further altering Earth’s planetary balance?
In case you missed it…
On last week’s Reality Roundtable, I was joined by Nora Bateson and Zak Stein to explore the multifaceted ways that AI is designed to exploit our deepest social vulnerabilities, and the risks this poses to human relationships, cognition, and society. They emphasized the need for careful consideration of how technology shapes our lives and what it means for the future of human connection. Ultimately, they advocate for a deeper engagement with the embodied aspects of living alongside other people and nature as a way to counteract our increasingly digital world.
If you want to support The Great Simplification podcast…
The Great Simplification podcast is produced by The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future (ISEOF), a 501(c)(3) organization. We want to keep all content completely free to view globally and without ads. If you’d like to support ISEOF and its content via a tax-deductible donation, please use the link below.
I know I should watch this one. But also don’t want to. Will eventually, maybe. Hate humans so powerfully today, and our ideas and “solutions” and above all our “leaders” and wannabe “saviors” that we so easily give all power to.
Soul weary of it. But you’re a mensch for doing this interview and I’m sure your guest is a good dude.
I've been concerned about this for a long time, and pretty adamantly opposed to geoengineering. This guy is a proponent--the fact that he comes across as so reasonable and fair-minded makes him an effective proponent; but I think you should consider the other side, perhaps by having someone from ETC Group on. On their website you can find a report called The Big Bad Fix, which I read a few years ago and thought very good. There are others that may be more recent.
I have several questions I'd ask Ted.
1) What about the charge that the sulfur spraying project would alter rainfall patterns? As you suggested, ANY change will benefit some and harm others, and with so many people living on the edge of survival, this could quite seriously lead to war. If the Indian monsoon hits India harder and Pakistan less, will India be accusing Pakistan of causing flooding if they supported the program, or will Pakistan accuse India of causing a drought that leads to thousands of deaths by starvation.?The intervention may not have caused the change, but if it's going on someone WILL blame it--and whoever is doing it.
2) These hundred airplanes flying 24/7 for years on end--what are they using for fuel? Fossil fuels? How does the cooling balance the emissions from the planes? And, isn't the dependence of airplanes on fossil fuels a good reason to fear termination shock--because the fuels aren't going to last forever, plus they depend on a complex supply chain that could easily be terminated, by shortages, war, etc..
3) Proponents of geoengineering invariably make the point that it isn't a substitute for mitigation, that mitigation must happen too. But OF COURSE implementation of a serious geoengineering project will reduce pressure for mitigation--even without geoengineering, mitigation is not happening now.
4) Speaking of which, why did Ted (and many others) say we're making good progress in reducing emissions when the readings at Mauna Loa are not only not falling but just went up by the largest increment ever?
5) Why did he say in the event of a termination, the sulfur in the stratosphere would take a decade to come down when he'd previously said it takes a year? And would even half a degree of abrupt rise from termination shock be harmless, when so many species are being driven to the brink?
6) The problem of trying to get rational governance is well considered by Ted, but that doesn't make it any less formidable. You seem to avoid mentions of politics, but, well look what happening in the U.S. right now, and much of the rest of the world--this is not getting better.