Countless scientists and experts have warned that solar geoengineering would give emitters an excuse not to end their fossil-fuel addictions and cause far-reaching unintended consequences. Using this controversial technology would thus amount to a profound betrayal of today's young people and future generations.
WASHINGTON, DC – We have grown up in a world where climate change is apparent everywhere. We see it in our stormy skies and in the floodwaters inundating our communities. We feel it in our throats and lungs when we inhale polluted air, and on our skin as we walk down the street during heat waves. World leaders would convene every year to make decisions and deals, compromises and commitments, always falling far short of delivering what was needed to mitigate and, increasingly, to adapt to climate change. This year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) was no exception.
All this inertia has spurred some to try to find a way around the hard work of ending harmful greenhouse-gas emissions, protecting critical ecosystems, and rethinking economic growth and development. One proposed “solution,” being pushed by a small but vocal minority in the Global North, is solar geoengineering, which involves modifying Earth’s atmosphere to create a reflective barrier against the sun’s radiation. For today’s youth and future generations, however, such interventions threaten to be as catastrophic as climate change.
Solar geoengineering can take many forms, including the release of huge amounts of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to create a reflective barrier against sunlight (stratospheric aerosol injection) and the injection of salt spray into shallow marine clouds (marine cloud brightening). But it never addresses the root causes of the climate crisis, and it involves modifying our planet’s atmosphere in ways that cannot be adequately tested at scale, with effects that will last decades or longer.
In fact, solar geoengineering would amplify existing global power imbalances, not least because decisions about its deployment would be made primarily by rich countries in the Global North – the same countries that created the climate crisis. These countries nurtured a deadly phenomenon, the burden of which is falling disproportionately on vulnerable communities, and now they propose a highly risky strategy that, even in the best-case scenario, would not solve the problem.
None of these objections has prevented millions of dollars from being funneled – largely by tech and finance billionaires – into solar geoengineering initiatives. Proponents suggest that such initiatives are a temporary fix, a way to buy more time for mitigation and adaptation. To us, such statements sound like dangerous castles in the air – appealing but illusory.
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
It is far more likely that solar geoengineering would provide an excuse for the world’s major emitters not to end their fossil-fuel addiction. This compounds the threat of a “termination shock”: if solar-geoengineering efforts were abruptly halted, rapid warming would ensue. Future generations – including today’s young people – would thus have to confront dangerous spikes in temperature and far more acute crises than those we face now.
If nothing else, we will be the ones footing the bill for the economic and societal transformation that climate change demands – a transformation that is not receiving adequate investment today. Advocates of solar geoengineering like to frame it as a “cheap” solution, but diverting resources from initiatives that we know work – and do not risk the health of our planet – cannot possibly be considered sound financial management. Instead, it amounts to offloading the hard work of addressing the carbon debt onto our generation and those that follow us.
Some loud – and, no doubt, well-funded – voices might accuse opponents like us of being closed-minded, suggesting that we should be more willing to engage in dialogue on the topic. But this is merely a ploy to dismiss a position backed by ample research. The small group of well-funded young individuals advocating research into solar geoengineering are often connected to organizations known for promoting these controversial technologies, raising the suspicion that they are being co-opted to give solar geoengineering the guise of youth support.
The last thing young people need is to be left shouldering the responsibility of yet another crisis we did not create. But that is precisely what solar geoengineering would most likely mean. Pursuing it amounts to a profound generational betrayal.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
Although AI has great potential to bring exciting changes to education, art, medicine, robotics, and other fields, it also poses major risks, most of which are not being addressed. Judging by the response so far from political and other institutions, we can safely expect many years of instability.
offers a brief roadmap of how the technology will evolve and be deployed over the next few years.
Despite Donald Trump’s assurances that he will not seek to remove Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, there is little doubt that the US president-elect aims to gain greater influence over the Fed’s decision-making. Such interference could drive up long-term interest rates, damaging the American economy.
worries about the incoming US administration’s plans to weaken the central bank’s independence.
WASHINGTON, DC – We have grown up in a world where climate change is apparent everywhere. We see it in our stormy skies and in the floodwaters inundating our communities. We feel it in our throats and lungs when we inhale polluted air, and on our skin as we walk down the street during heat waves. World leaders would convene every year to make decisions and deals, compromises and commitments, always falling far short of delivering what was needed to mitigate and, increasingly, to adapt to climate change. This year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) was no exception.
All this inertia has spurred some to try to find a way around the hard work of ending harmful greenhouse-gas emissions, protecting critical ecosystems, and rethinking economic growth and development. One proposed “solution,” being pushed by a small but vocal minority in the Global North, is solar geoengineering, which involves modifying Earth’s atmosphere to create a reflective barrier against the sun’s radiation. For today’s youth and future generations, however, such interventions threaten to be as catastrophic as climate change.
Solar geoengineering can take many forms, including the release of huge amounts of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to create a reflective barrier against sunlight (stratospheric aerosol injection) and the injection of salt spray into shallow marine clouds (marine cloud brightening). But it never addresses the root causes of the climate crisis, and it involves modifying our planet’s atmosphere in ways that cannot be adequately tested at scale, with effects that will last decades or longer.
Geoengineering research has always been controversial for precisely these reasons. Countless scientists and experts have warned that the approach could cause far-reaching unintended consequences. Studies show, for example, that it could disrupt climate and weather patterns, leading to severe droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme weather. These risks are unpredictable, and their effects would be unequally distributed.
In fact, solar geoengineering would amplify existing global power imbalances, not least because decisions about its deployment would be made primarily by rich countries in the Global North – the same countries that created the climate crisis. These countries nurtured a deadly phenomenon, the burden of which is falling disproportionately on vulnerable communities, and now they propose a highly risky strategy that, even in the best-case scenario, would not solve the problem.
None of these objections has prevented millions of dollars from being funneled – largely by tech and finance billionaires – into solar geoengineering initiatives. Proponents suggest that such initiatives are a temporary fix, a way to buy more time for mitigation and adaptation. To us, such statements sound like dangerous castles in the air – appealing but illusory.
HOLIDAY SALE: PS for less than $0.7 per week
At a time when democracy is under threat, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided. Subscribe now and save $50 on a new subscription.
Subscribe Now
It is far more likely that solar geoengineering would provide an excuse for the world’s major emitters not to end their fossil-fuel addiction. This compounds the threat of a “termination shock”: if solar-geoengineering efforts were abruptly halted, rapid warming would ensue. Future generations – including today’s young people – would thus have to confront dangerous spikes in temperature and far more acute crises than those we face now.
If nothing else, we will be the ones footing the bill for the economic and societal transformation that climate change demands – a transformation that is not receiving adequate investment today. Advocates of solar geoengineering like to frame it as a “cheap” solution, but diverting resources from initiatives that we know work – and do not risk the health of our planet – cannot possibly be considered sound financial management. Instead, it amounts to offloading the hard work of addressing the carbon debt onto our generation and those that follow us.
That is why we advocate a full ban on solar geoengineering. And we are not alone. More than 2,000 civil-society organizations, including Fridays For Future, and over 540 academics have called for an International Non-Use Agreement on Solar Geoengineering. Countries on the front lines of the climate crisis, such as Vanuatu and others, have similarly opposed the use of such technologies.
Some loud – and, no doubt, well-funded – voices might accuse opponents like us of being closed-minded, suggesting that we should be more willing to engage in dialogue on the topic. But this is merely a ploy to dismiss a position backed by ample research. The small group of well-funded young individuals advocating research into solar geoengineering are often connected to organizations known for promoting these controversial technologies, raising the suspicion that they are being co-opted to give solar geoengineering the guise of youth support.
The last thing young people need is to be left shouldering the responsibility of yet another crisis we did not create. But that is precisely what solar geoengineering would most likely mean. Pursuing it amounts to a profound generational betrayal.