It is commonly established among the climate scientific community that there is not a ‘silver bullet’ solution to address climate change and its effects. Instead, many have advocated for a ‘silver buckshot’ that takes a multi-pronged approach to address climate change (although some say a buckshot is not enough either). Does geoengineering serve as one of these solutions, or is it a folly? What is geoengineering and who bears responsibility and accountability for using it? And should we use it?
What is Geoengineering?
Geoengineering has been defined in different ways (see here and here), but it typically captures two strands of thinking and technological change: (1) carbon capture and sequestration—otherwise known as sucking carbon dioxide out of the air and locking it away to stop these emissions warming up the air and contributing to climate change; and (2) solar or climate geoengineering, or solar radiation management—designed to reflect sunlight away from Earth by using sun shields or dispersing particles in the air. Carbon capture technologies remain in their infancy and planting trees to capture carbon dioxide is not risk-free, and solar or climate geoengineering has not been conducted on a large scale.
One geoengineering expert argued that geoengineering is a “weird artifact of the early twenty-first-century” and a “way of seeing the human relationship with the rest of nature” (Black 2019, 24). The expert adds, “climate geoengineering is mostly imaginary right now,” but believes that “as long as climate change worsens, the specter is always there,” especially as fossil fuel companies seek to continue extracting fossil fuels (Black 2019, 25). In an MIT post (2019), geoengineering was argued to be, at best, “a temporary stay of execution” and that it “does little to address other climate dangers, notably including ocean acidification, or the considerable environmental damage from extracting and burning finite fossil fuels.”
Thought Experiment
One way to consider who bears responsibility and accountability for geoengineering is to consider a thought experiment that is inspired by Holly Jean Black’s book, After Geoengineering (2019).
It is 2042. The sky had changed. At first, the difference was subtle—a paler blue, a hazier sun. Then came the cooling.
An international coalition had launched stratospheric aerosol injections, scattering sulfur particles high above Earth. The temperature dropped. Drought-stricken lands revived, and hurricanes weakened. But not everyone was pleased.
In your neighborhood, protests erupt. “This is a band aid, not a cure!” activists shouted. “We’re playing god!” Scientists warned of side effects—shifting weather patterns, acid rain, unknown consequences.
You sip your coffee, scrolling headlines. India reports changing rainfall levels, devastating crop production and deepening famine. Pacific fisheries collapse. Lawsuits pile up as nations accuse one another of tampering with weather patterns. Congress debates pulling out of the accord. But what then? If the injections stop, temperatures could spike.
Your tablet buzzes. A message from an old friend: Don’t let fear win. Call your senator. Demand an end to geoengineering. Beneath it, a childhood protest photo: you, young and defiant.
But what if ending geoengineering meant disaster? What if your child’s future depends on the very thing you once opposed?
You hesitate. Then, heart pounding, you make the call.
Fast forward to 2074. You wake to sirens. Another attack. You check your phone—shelter in place—before taping the plastic sheeting over your windows.
Your child messages from across the world: Are you okay?
For now. Indoors for a while, you respond. You hesitate before adding, I wish I’d left when I had the opportunity.
The war started when rogue state actors bombed a major geoengineering hub near your home in West Virginia. Within weeks, the world heated slightly, crops withered, storms worsened. Attempts to restart the system faltered—planes grounded, refineries destroyed, scientists assassinated. Old alliances fractured. The rich fled to underground bunkers or space stations, leaving billions behind.
Your child, raised on stories of logic and progress, still believes in solutions. Why aren’t they fixing it?
You don’t have the heart to explain: those who could fix it are either dead, in hiding, or fighting over dwindling resources. The only folks working geoengineering belong to a few surviving states, but without global cooperation, their efforts are failing and in competition with one another.
A distant explosion rattles the walls. I’m scared for you, your child writes.
You think of all the ways this could have been prevented. You think about the call you made to your senator all those years ago. You have no wisdom to offer, only three words: I’m still here. Then, the plastic sheeting taped over your windows rattles loose.
Should we use Geoengineering?
This thought experiment offers a glimpse into one possible future, but it also draws on key elements of the present that have remain unchanged for quite some time. For example, who are the decision-makers that launch an international coalition, fund geoengineering initiatives and research and development, or sponsor adversarial actors to bomb geoengineering hubs? It is hard to imagine that these decisions were done without those who have often played a role in determining environmental decisions to date—the powerful. Are these the same people who will inform whether and/or how compensation or insurance will function in the event that geoengineering goes awry? Or how to protect vulnerable populations most at-risk from these initiatives? Or how these initiatives, research, and development will be paid for?
A project manager of Harvard’s solar geoengineering research program, Lizzie Burns, said in 2019 that solar geoengineering is like a painkiller, “If you need stomach surgery and you took pain medication, it doesn’t mean you no longer need stomach surgery.” In effect, geoengineering is an “untested, unregulated supplement” and it could improve our environment, but it also has the potential to make it worse. Similarly, Vera Heck, previously from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research, said in 2018 that geoengineering comes with “substantial” risks. More recently, the Center for International Environmental Law published The Risks of Geoengineering in October 2024, and their key takeaway is that geoengineering “not only fails to address the root causes of the climate crisis but risks accelerating ecosystem collapse and species extinction.” They add, “It could severely compromise our ability to bring the biosphere back to a state where it can better regulate climate conditions and provide vital ecosystem functions.”
Overall, these warnings signs from climate and environmental scientists and carbon capture and geoengineering experts indicate that the path toward geoengineering as a climate solution is, at best, an unregulated and untested practice that will not solve the issues that result in climate change and, at worst, a practice that will wreak further havoc on vulnerable populations, the natural environment, other species, and potentially generate conflict borne out of unforeseen consequences such as changing weather patterns that adversely affect crops, among other things.