Another promising approach is marine cloud whitening, which sprays seawater droplets into marine clouds to make them reflect more sunlight. This augments the natural process, where sea salt from the oceans provides water vapor with the cloud condensation nuclei.
It is remarkable to consider that we could cancel out this century’s global warming with 1,900 unmanned ships spraying seawater mist into the air to thicken clouds. The total cost would be about US$9 billion and the benefits of preventing the temperature increase would add up to about US$20 trillion. That is the equivalent of doing about $2,000 worth of good with every US$1 spent.
Many of the risks of climate engineering have been overstated. Marine cloud whitening would not lead to permanent atmospheric changes and could be used only when needed. Turning seawater into clouds is a natural process.
The biggest challenge is public perception. Many environmental lobbyists oppose even researching climate engineering. This is startling, given the manifold benefits. If we care most about avoiding warmer temperatures, it seems that we should be elated that this simple, cost-effective approach shows so much promise.
Climate engineering could remain a back-up option in case of necessity. Or we could put it on the agenda today. In either case, there is a commanding case for its serious consideration. We are on track to being the generation that wasted decades bickering over carbon-emission cuts and failed to stop the harmful effects of warming. That would be a shameful legacy — one that could be avoided by re-thinking climate policy.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
RSS