Late Friday, the White House released a report expressing the Biden Administration’s openness to exploring geoengineering as a means of reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.

What could possibly go wrong?

Geoengineering, a controversial scientific practice aimed at combating climate change, involves manipulating the climate. The report outlined the administration’s focus on two specific approaches: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB).

Solar geoengineering, one form of geoengineering, includes Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), which entails releasing aerosols into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays.

Brilliant idea.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently developing a five-year research plan to investigate solar geoengineering methods.

The White House report highlighted the “greater near-term feasibility” of SAI and MCB, while acknowledging the “significant trans-boundary impacts” and “governance challenges” associated with atmospheric approaches.

By spraying particles from aircraft into the sky, these methods would affect populations globally, disregarding national borders.

In the event that US science agencies support a “large-scale program” of SRM, the report proposed engaging in international cooperation.

The White House argued that such collaboration could facilitate knowledge sharing, research advancements, resource conservation, the establishment of best practices, and help prevent “irresponsible experimentation and/or deployment.”

To oversee any large-scale federal research program on SRM, the US Global Change Research Program would coordinate efforts. This program focuses on understanding the various forces that shape the global environment, both human-induced and natural, and their societal impacts.

Acknowledging concerns about independent development and deployment of SRM technologies by governments or non-state actors, the report called for identifying international frameworks to promote cooperation, monitoring, deterrence, and response.

The United Nations is a likely platform for such a framework.

The Biden administration emphasized ‘the need for further research on the scientific and societal implications of SRM to inform future decisions’.

However, the White House clarified that it currently has no plans to establish a comprehensive research program solely focused on solar radiation modification.

The White House report apparently drew inspiration from the 2021 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report titled “Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance.”

According to the NASEM report, outdoor experimentation could be pursued cautiously, under appropriate governance and oversight, producing critical observations at a smaller scale to minimize impacts.

This rather disturbing report also addressed concerns raised by previous research regarding the impact of SAI on sky coloration and resulting psychological effects.

Ben Kravitz’s work at the Carnegie Institution for Science showed that releasing sulphate aerosols could reduce sunlight reaching the ground by 20% and cause hazier skies, potentially leading to the loss of blue skies.

Additionally, the White House report recognized the potential long-term impact of SRM, stating that it could be sustained for decades or even centuries. This may reflect research indicating that geoengineering could inadvertently contribute to global warming, contrary to its intended purpose.

A 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres suggested that initiating and abruptly halting geoengineering programs could lead to immediate temperature increases, especially over land.

The study cautioned against suspending programs once started, as doing so could exacerbate the very problem geoengineering aims to address.

In February 2015, an international committee of scientists issued a report asserting that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists called for further research on various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management, before considering their implementation.

The committee definitely didn’t like the serious environmental, psychological, social, AND political risks associated with solar geoengineering techniques and the potential for unilateral deployment.

I don’t blame them.

The European Commission echoed these concerns and announced support for “international efforts” to assess the risks associated with geoengineering. The commission called for discussions on a potential international framework to govern these techniques and emphasized the “unacceptable” risks posed by attempts to manipulate the climate.

Frans Timmermans, the European Union climate policy chief, stressed the need for international governance models to regulate potential geoengineering technologies effectively.

Critics argue that the geoengineering conversation serves as a catalyst for advocating “international frameworks” and “global governance models.” They caution against hasty implementation and question whether governments should have the authority to meddle with the climate.

Perhaps some sort of “one world government” could clear the red tape from implementing stupid ideas like this in the future.

Yet again, it’s obvious that the current administration isn’t taking public opinion or scientific concerns into consideration.

The outcome of this scientific discourse will significantly impact our lives and shape our future… which could be very dark indeed.

Read the original article here:
Activist Post