Until 2020, when the National Maritime Organization imposed a limit on the amounts of SO2 that can be emitted from board ships, massive cargo ships were emitting a ton of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which has many negative health and environmental effects. However, SO2 is responsible for the “ship tracks” that follow the path of a vessel, as it seeds clouds, which reflect light instead of absorbing it. When atmospheric SO2 levels decreased as a result of regulations, cloud cover decreased as well, allowing the Earth to absorb more heat, resulting in a spike in regional temperatures. This means global warming is even more significant than previous estimates indicated, but the knowledge derived from this discovery can actually help fight climate change.

The changes observed through SO2 emissions and restrictions contribute to global knowledge of solar radiation management, a strategy being studied to manage rising temperatures by reducing the Earth’s absorption of solar energy. Solar radiation management falls under the umbrella of geoengineering, which is the control of Earth’s environment through intentional anthropogenic means, like carbon capture technology or managing roof color. Painting roofs white decreases heat absorption, which decreases household energy used to manage temperature, but also causes the Earth itself to absorb less heat. Although geoengineering has been studied for decades, the impacts of 2020’s SO2 regulations provide data on a huge scale without conducting an intentional experiment, which would involve serious regulations and global pushback.

Due to the many risks of SO2, it is not feasible to use it to promote cloud formation, but it is not the only compound that can be used to seed clouds. Seawater can be misted above the ocean from which it was extracted, and the salt remaining after the water evaporates can seed clouds. This avoids the potential issue of contaminating the air or ocean, because it simply uses the salt water that was already in the ocean. 

In addition to marine cloud brightening, solar radiation management can be performed by sending huge mirrors into orbit or preventing the formation of cirrus clouds, which actually have a warming effect. There are many options being considered for future geoengineering projects, which can be extremely beneficial for the future of global temperatures. However, since geoengineering would impact the whole world, it must have widespread approval, meaning it must be managed on a global scale and have universal consequences, which is especially difficult because so much is unknown about geoengineering. 

As with any new technology, there is a lot to discuss, especially as the impacts of geoengineering could be indirect and lasting, making it difficult to research. It is extremely irresponsible to do geoengineering without doing the proper research on how it would affect people and ecosystems in other regions, and even doing that research is controversial because experiments require geoengineering to be performed, even on a small scale. However, research is crucial because the dangers of all technology are amplified by those who wield it; using geoengineering to induce rain might cause another region to experience drought, but it’s hard to know without proper studies.

Although I think geoengineering is extremely interesting and should continue being researched, I don’t think it should be our main priority. Technologies like geoengineering and carbon capture don’t do anything to decrease the emissions we produce in the first place and are usually less cost effective. I feel like their development should be secondary to bigger changes such as those in impactful sectors such as energy and transportation. Geoengineering certainly has a place in reducing the extent of global warming, but they are not quite as proactive of a solution. It does not change the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere or the GHGs we are emitting, just global temperatures. Worst case scenario, what if politicians or corporations use geoengineering as an excuse so they can avoid environmental changes? Knowing that we can push temperatures down without modifying our emissions might do more harm than good. Like I said, geoengineering is fascinating, and I don’t oppose it, but I think we should focus on the source of the issue before damage control, especially when it comes to significant investments.

This being said, finances are not the main obstacle to geoengineering, as there has been a lot of controversy facing the technology. Similar to GMOs, people are not happy with the artificial nature of this strategy. Even though we’ve been altering the climate for centuries, changing it intentionally does not sit well with people. Next week, I’ll discuss a major event for geoengineering that occurred last summer, sparking public outcry despite its intentions. 

All the controversy makes me consider my expectations of the future. If I knew it were possible, I would certainly think of the future as a world where we could control the weather to help our crops, protect our environment, and curb scorching summers. Personally, I’d be delighted if they put more clouds in the sky, but I know other people prefer sunny weather. It’s difficult to make decisions on behalf of a community, especially if they chose to live in a certain area because of its weather. But who wants 110° summers? So we have access to this amazing technology that could reduce the searing summer heat, but because some of us disagree, we just have to let nature decide? As with most problems involving humans, I am reminded of the trolley problem: action or inaction. 

For those who are unfamiliar, the trolley problem is a famous philosophical debate regarding the decision to switch a train’s tracks, killing one person to save three others. In this simplified form, flipping the tracks is the obvious choice, but real life representations of this question yield different results. For example, seeding clouds in California’s scorching summers would reduce energy and water use, which would save countless dollars and decrease contributions to global warming, but those that prefer sunny skies could prevent it. Obviously, this scenario would be much more nuanced in real life, and we aren’t even close to a point where we should just start seeding clouds having barely researched the rippling effects, but you get my point.

Clearly, I have a lot of thoughts on this topic. I hope to discuss it on Friday at my club, so if we have any fascinating conclusions or arguments, I’ll update you next week. Stay tuned to learn with me!

Marine cloud brightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk8pwE3IByg, https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jlEyIc1Pk&t=0s 

Solar radiation modification methods: https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengineer-the-planet-more-scientists-now-say-it-must-be-an-option