This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: The world is set to miss the 1.5°C global warming target, and plans are underway for U.N. climate talks in the Pacific and Turkey. Climate mitigation—reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions—was once treated as the only legitimate response to global warming.
In comparison, climate adaptation—trying to adjust to global warming—was seen as a form of defeatism, or worse, hubris. But that taboo has long since lifted: our collective failure to prevent climate change means adaptation is now an essential part of climate policy. Similarly, attitudes toward actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have evolved.
While there are reasons to doubt whether carbon removal can work at scale, Australia's "net-zero emissions" plans rely on these interventions. Now, the taboo surrounding another controversial form of climate intervention—solar radiation modification (SRM)—appears to be lifting. SRM refers to large-scale technological interventions that reflect a small amount of sunlight back into space, thereby lowering global temperatures.
Increasingly called by the more benign term "climate stabilization," the proposed methods include space mirrors—satellites equipped with large reflective surfaces—and cloud brightening, where microscopic particles are sprayed into clouds to make them more reflective. The most commonly discussed SRM technique is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI)—the release of particles into the upper atmosphere to recreate the cooling effects observed following volcanic eruptions. SRM is so controversial it's sometimes called the "Voldemort of climate policy." While it could reduce global temperatures, it does not limit carbon emissions, and the ecological effects of deployment are uncertain.
Some critics are worried a potential techno-fix will deter mitigation efforts. Others point out the risks of "termination shock": Once implemented, ending SRM would cause abrupt temperature rise. Scientific research suggests the strong warming experienced since 2023 is likely a case of inadvertent termination shock.
When new fuel regulations reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from international shipping, the rapid warming that followed revealed this pollution had, incidentally, been cooling the planet. At present, SRM inhabits an international and domestic policy vacuum. Many scholars advocate for a ban on both research and deployment, saying these technologies "play God" with nature.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
