Were there any plans or proposals for “unilateral geoengineering deployments” before this paper was publsihed?

Geoengineering: When One Nation Takes the Climate into Its Own Hands

Geoengineering. It sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi movie, right? But the idea of deliberately tinkering with the Earth’s climate to fight climate change has been floating around for a surprisingly long time. And the really thorny question is: what happens if a single country decides to go it alone and deploy these technologies without everyone else’s agreement? That’s what we call “unilateral geoengineering,” and it’s been a worry for decades.

Believe it or not, the notion of messing with the environment on a grand scale isn’t new. We’re talking centuries! But the specific idea of geoengineering as a response to climate change really started gaining traction in the mid-20th century.

Think back to the post-World War II era. Weather modification was all the rage. From the 1940s to the 1970s, governments poured money into trying to control the weather. Cloud seeding, where you shoot chemicals like silver iodide into clouds to make it rain, was one of the earliest attempts. I remember reading about how some people even tried to seed clouds during the Vietnam War to disrupt enemy supply lines – talk about unintended consequences!

Then, in 1965, a U.S. presidential panel suggested we explore “geoengineering” to combat the greenhouse effect. Their ideas? Spreading reflective stuff on the ocean or releasing particles into the atmosphere to make clouds. Pretty wild stuff for the time.

A Russian climatologist named Mikhail Budyko took things a step further in 1974. He proposed pumping aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. His idea was to have planes burn sulfur to create those aerosols. It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? Using pollution to fight pollution. He had also speculated about spreading dark dust or soot across Arctic snow and ice to lower the albedo.

Even earlier, in the 1950s, Soviet scientists were dreaming up massive projects like diverting Arctic rivers to irrigate Central Asia. It wasn’t exactly solar geoengineering, but it showed how far people were willing to go to reshape the environment.

Fast forward to more recent times, and we see the rise of Solar Radiation Management (SRM). SRM is all about bouncing sunlight back into space to cool things down. A 1992 U.S. National Academies report mentioned SRM alongside carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

The idea of engineering cooling to counter climatic warming was proposed in 1964. The first modeled results and review article on SRM were published in 2000.

But here’s the kicker: some SRM methods, like injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, are relatively cheap and easy to deploy. That’s why the possibility of one country going rogue and doing it on their own is such a big deal. It raises all sorts of questions about who gets to decide what’s best for the planet, and what happens if things go wrong.

So, what are some of these proposed SRM methods?

• Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI): Think of it as mimicking a volcanic eruption. You pump reflective particles (usually sulfates) into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight.
• Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB): This involves spraying seawater into low-lying clouds to make them brighter and more reflective.
• Space-Based Reflectors: The name says it all. You put giant mirrors or sunshades in space to deflect sunlight. A bit ambitious, to say the least!
• Other Methods: Even simpler ideas like painting roofs white or growing crops that reflect more sunlight fall under the geoengineering umbrella.

Now, before you get too excited about a quick fix to climate change, there are some serious downsides to consider:

• Unintended consequences: We’re talking about messing with a complex system. Who knows what could go wrong? Changes in weather patterns, droughts, floods – the possibilities are endless.
• Termination shock: What happens if we suddenly stop SRM? Temperatures could skyrocket, causing even more chaos.
• Moral hazard: If we think we can just geoengineer our way out of climate change, we might lose the motivation to actually cut emissions.
• Geopolitical tensions: Imagine the fights over who controls the thermostat and who gets blamed if something goes wrong.

Despite all these concerns, scientists are still researching geoengineering to understand its potential, risks, and how it should be governed. The Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Program (SGRP) is one example. They’re trying to figure out if it’s even feasible and what the potential impacts might be.

The bottom line? The idea of one country unilaterally deploying geoengineering technologies has been around for a while. From early weather modification schemes to today’s SRM proposals, the potential for a single actor to take climate action into their own hands is a real concern. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers, and it demands careful consideration and international cooperation. We need to figure out how to manage these technologies responsibly, before someone decides to roll the dice and change the climate on their own.