War game finds global tensions could undermine solar geoengineering rules
A war game on solar geoengineering found that international tensions and competing interests could overwhelm attempts to govern the technology responsibly. The exercise matters because private companies and influential figures are increasingly discussing ways to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight, while governments may soon face decisions about whether and how to regulate such efforts.
Researchers simulated UN meetings at three points: the present, September 2027 and September 2028, with new technological developments introduced at each stage. Solar radiation modification could lower temperatures, much as major volcanic eruptions do, but its regional effects are uncertain and may include drier conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and stronger Atlantic tropical storms. The cooling would also end if the intervention stopped, potentially causing temperatures to rise rapidly; one start-up has raised $60 million, and a former UN adviser said governance decisions could be needed within the next decade.
- A solar geoengineering war game exposed the difficulty of international cooperation.
- Sunlight-reflecting technology could cool the planet, but risks are uneven and uncertain.
- A former UN adviser says governance decisions may be needed within a decade.
New here? Start with this
Solar geoengineering, also called solar radiation modification, means trying to cool the planet by reflecting some sunlight back into space. It could lower global temperatures, but scientists cannot yet predict its effects in every region; some places might become drier or face stronger storms.
Because its effects could cross borders, countries would need to consider how such an intervention is managed and who gets to decide. The cooling would also depend on continuing the intervention, so stopping it could bring a rapid rise in temperatures. Companies and public figures have begun discussing the technology, adding to questions about what rules governments may need.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of developing rules argue that solar geoengineering could reduce some harms from extreme heat, and that governments need to prepare before private actors or influential individuals move ahead. A UN-led framework could improve transparency, assess uncertain regional risks and coordinate decisions, especially given the danger of rapid warming if an intervention were abruptly stopped.
The case against
Critics argue that international rules may be ineffective when countries face competing interests and geopolitical tensions, while a global framework could lend legitimacy to a technology with uncertain and uneven regional effects. They may favour restraint or limits on deployment until risks are better understood, since cooling could bring harms such as drier conditions in sub-Saharan Africa and stronger Atlantic storms, and stopping an intervention could trigger rapid warming.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Ars Technica as “They war-gamed dimming the Sun. It went even worse than you think.”.