Be wary of climate change 'miracle' fix
A man cools off at a beach in Madrid on Monday. Last month was the hottest June on record. Credit: AP/Manu Fernandez
In a can-you-top-this week for climate science, the world kept breaking records.
Scientists are haggling over details but it looks like Earth posted its hottest day ever — or in modern times, or in at least 125,000 years — on Monday. And again on Tuesday. And tied that Wednesday. And beat it Thursday. And it’s still toasty.
Last month was the hottest June on record, sea ice levels off Antarctica are at record lows, North Atlantic ocean waters are warmer than they’ve ever been at this time of year, and deadly heat waves have hit India, Mexico, China and Texas.
The cyclic Pacific Ocean El Nino phenomenon is a factor in driving up temperatures as it always is when it forms, but the current El Nino is a newbie whose maximum impacts likely won’t come until December or January.
It’s clear something has to change in humanity’s up-to-now insufficient fight against climate change.
How interesting, then, that with all that heat on our holiday doorstep, the White House chose late Friday afternoon before the July Fourth weekend to quietly release a congressionally mandated report that concluded that it might not be a bad idea to conduct research on possible methods of blocking some of the sun’s rays from reaching Earth and further cooking the planet.
It’s called solar radiation modification, or solar geoengineering, and was the stuff of science fiction until the changing climate sparked some dabbling into the idea a few decades ago. Now, the Biden administration is offering some support for finding out whether it can — or should — be the stuff of actual science.
The attraction is obvious. Planet overheats, sun is blocked, temperatures drop, Earth is saved. Roll the credits.
Except it’s highly unlikely to go that way. Humans don’t have a good batting average against Mother Nature. And the consequences of getting this wrong are monstrous. Pushback from many corners of science and politics has been fierce because of the unknowns. Which, to be fair, can be as much a reason to study the concept as to dismiss it. One measure of the concern: A worried European Commission wants talks on how to govern the research.
One top proposal for blocking solar rays is increasing aerosol particles that reflect light away from the planet. That’s pretty much what happens after a major volcano erupts; gas and dust particles block the sun and lower temperatures. Other ideas include increasing cloud cover over the oceans and reducing the amount of cirrus clouds that let sunlight through but then trap the heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The risks are many. How would it affect weather patterns? Would agriculture be disrupted? What about human health? Biodiversity? Water supplies? How can such a thing be coordinated globally? When impacts vary by region, as they surely would, how would nations react? Peacefully, or otherwise? How do you calibrate it so it doesn’t go too far? Are we prepared for the fact that once we start geoengineering the sun, we likely cannot stop? Since it wouldn’t remove an ounce of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, Earth would again heat up rapidly if the practice is halted.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect is that the prospect of easier, cheaper success would dissuade governments and corporations even more from taking the difficult and costly steps needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even as the window for successful intervention narrows and urgency builds. I’ve always believed in the value of research, but what if the world puts its climate change-fighting efforts on hold because a “miracle” fix is in the works? Several members of Congress are already hugging the idea.
We’ve been hard at work changing the climate for worse for a long time. We should be wary of anything that weakens the effort to reverse that.
n COLUMNIST MICHAEL DOBIE’S opinions are his own.
Michael Dobie is a retired member of the Newsday editorial board.
