As emissions from automobiles, aircraft, and power plants continue to fill the air, the challenge of climate change remains daunting. While the carbon dioxide released today could linger for thousands of years, future climate goals require addressing these emissions even if fossil fuel use is eventually curtailed. Researchers are investigating technological solutions, although progress is hindered by the Trump administration’s anti-climate policies.
Climate interventions, or geoengineering, are gaining attention as potential tools to mitigate carbon output. Among these, solar-radiation modification (SRM) is particularly contentious. This method involves dispersing aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect a small portion of sunlight away from Earth. Though it sounds like something from a science fiction narrative, the actual process involves reflecting just a fraction of sunlight back into space. However, concerns persist about the long-term environmental impacts of such aerosols.
More widely accepted is carbon-dioxide removal (CDR), which actively extracts carbon from the atmosphere. While CDR appears more straightforward, it requires further technological refinement. Many climate models, including those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), incorporate CDR as a necessary component for achieving climate objectives. For more details, see the IPCC reports.
Research efforts in SRM face numerous challenges due to funding cuts and policy shifts. Daniele Visioni from Cornell University shared with Rolling Stone, “I had a grant that was awarded from NOAA, but they told me that they had no money to give me, and so that I couldn’t do it.” This research was crucial for understanding and refining long-term geoengineering models.
Holly Buck of the University of Buffalo explains that implementing solar geoengineering would require aircraft or other delivery systems to distribute particles globally. She emphasizes, “The thing about that is we really haven’t done enough research to understand what the implications would be.”
CDR, while less controversial, presents its own set of challenges. Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Oxford states, “CDR is a kind of technology that if anybody could make it work at scale, which is completely unclear, it would be a good thing.”
David Ho from the University of Hawaii highlights the impact of budget cuts on CDR advancements, including methods like direct air capture and ocean deacidification. With 22 million tons of carbon dioxide entering the ocean daily, reducing ocean acidity could enhance its carbon absorption ability.
Funding reductions at the Department of Energy are threatening the development of direct air capture hubs, leaving many projects in limbo. Ho notes, “Nobody is sure what’s really happening,” which complicates research and development efforts.
As the Trump administration cuts funding for renewable energy and climate research, the ability to explore and potentially deploy these interventions is compromised. The need for comprehensive research is more urgent than ever, as future climate scenarios remain unpredictable.
Original Story at www.rollingstone.com