The National Academy of Sciences is warning policymakers against endorsing a technique straight from the pages of science fiction to end global warming, saying the threat from the would-be solution could be worse than the problem it is attempting to solve.
Marcia McNutt, committee chairwoman for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, discussed the technique called “albedo modification” at an event Tuesday hosted by the U.S. Energy Association.
She described the technology as a sort of “thermostat” that a nation or group of nations would use to refocus the rays of the sun — called “albedo” — to mitigate the warming effect that many scientists say is being caused by carbon dioxide and the use of fossil fuels.
“Yes, it’s affordable. Yes, it’s quite doable. But in terms of the societal, legal, ethical, moral considerations, there is so little work done that it should not be considered at this time until a lot more work is done in those dimensions,” McNutt said.
She said the academy’s top recommendation in a report she helped write is that policymakers not endorse the idea at least until more research is done.
The event was used to address a series of reports issued by the academy that examine albedo with a group of other technologies that are considered part of a “climate intervention” solution to lessen the effects of global warming.
McNutt said the academy explored a variety of ways to reduce the effects of climate change, but albedo is the one technique that the scientists warned against because of the “significant risks” it poses, while providing “no reduction of the root cause of climate change.”
The report explains that there can be environmental harm from the practice, including changes in patterns of precipitation and the possibility of causing drought. Depending on how it is done, it could also have atmospheric effects that observers say could cause dramatic changes in the weather.
There are also geopolitical risks posed by the technology, where one country has the power to change weather, and those dying from famine could be saved or left to die based on who has means to deploy an albedo solution, scientists say.
She said it would be the equivalent of “spraying perfume on garbage” to eliminate the smell. The smell might change for some, but the problem is still there.
But the biggest reason for attaching a warning to albedo, she said, is it could force the planet to go “to a more dangerous place” where “some people will be happy with it, and some will not be happy” from its effects. The technology would create warmer areas on one part of the globe while creating more challenging conditions someplace else, McNutt said.
Even though there are scientists that say the technique is worth examining, the academy decided there isn’t enough known about it to make an endorsement — while the impact could be monstrous. McNutt said it raises serious questions about “whose hand is on the thermostat?” and who would have the authority to make changes to the climate.
Individual researchers have studied the effects of albedo injection for years, trying to assess the reduction of global warming as well as the new health hazards the practice could cause.
Albedo modification would use some sort of cloud seeding to reflect the rays of the sun. That has been done using doses of sulfur delivered as an aerosol.
Noted Dutch scientist and Nobel laureate P.J. Crutzen has written that the improvements in global cooling would be “bought at a substantial price” where increased levels of sulfur dioxide would increase the level of premature deaths. He noted in a 2006 paper on the “albedo dilemma” that “the pollution particles affect health and lead to more than 500,000 premature deaths per year worldwide.”
