Although the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent, the progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains as disappointing as ever, leading some to tout new technological solutions that could supposedly save the day.
For example, David Keith, an applied physics professor at Harvard University, would have us consider geoengineering — that is, deliberate, large-scale and highly risky interventions in the Earth’s climate system.
At the UN environmental conference in Nairobi, Kenya in March, the US and Saudi Arabia blocked an effort to scrutinize geoengineering and its implications for international governance.
Meanwhile, Keith’s Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) in the US — which aims to test a form of geoengineering known as solar radiation management — seems to be moving forward.
Solar radiation management depends on so-called stratospheric aerosol injection, whereby a high-altitude balloon sprays large quantities of inorganic particles into the stratosphere with the goal of reflecting some sunlight back into space. SCoPEx would send a balloon equipped with scientific instruments about 20km above the ground to test the reflectivity of various substances.
Yet the technical aspects of the experiment are far less important than its political, social and geopolitical implications. After all, the risks of geoengineering could not be more serious.
If deployed at scale, solar radiation management could disrupt the monsoons in Asia and cause droughts in Africa, affecting the food and water supplies of 2 billion people.
The use of sulfuric acid — the most studied option, and the one SCoPEx initially intended to test — could further deplete the ozone layer. (More recently, SCoPEx has been mentioning only carbonates.)
The launch of an independent advisory committee for SCoPEx seems to be aimed at lending legitimacy to a kind of experiment that the rest of the world has agreed is too dangerous to allow.
Moreover, the panel’s membership is exclusively US-based, and mostly linked to elite institutions, which raises questions about whose interests are being served.
These concerns are reinforced by the fact that the SCoPEx pitch is fundamentally manipulative. The results from a “small-scale” experiment would not amount to a credible assessment of the effects of deploying solar radiation management at the scale needed for geoengineering.
As climate scientists have made clear, the only way to know how solar radiation management would affect the climate is to deploy it over several decades on a massive scale. Otherwise, its effects could not be distinguished from other climate variables and “climate noise.”
Given that geoengineering is, by nature, not testable, all experiments like SCoPEx can do is create momentum for larger and longer experiments. Once millions of dollars have been sunk into creating the relevant institutions and employing large numbers of people, it becomes easier to argue that even more data should be collected and, finally, that the technology should be deployed.
In this sense, projects such as SCoPEx set a new and dangerous precedent for the unilateral implementation of geoengineering technologies by billionaires and vested interests.
As the Center for International Environmental Law and the Heinrich Boll Foundation’s recent report Fuel to Fire says, fossil-fuel companies have been investing in geoengineering for decades.
For them, the promise of a technological get-out-of-jail-free card is an ideal pretext for continuing their highly profitable, destructive activities.
Keith’s own company, Carbon Engineering, recently received US$68 million from Occidental Petroleum, Chevron and coal giant BHP to develop another potentially dangerous geoengineering approach — direct air capture, which takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to be used or stored. Among the company’s original funders are Canadian oil sands financier N. Murray Edwards (as well as Microsoft founder Bill Gates).
Allowing such projects to move forward with no political mandate or institutional oversight could entrench a system of self-regulation that is grossly inadequate for technologies as consequential as geoengineering.
That is why the UN Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) has asked governments not to allow any geoengineering activities to be carried out until “a global, transparent, and effective control and regulatory mechanism” is put in place — a mechanism that adheres to a “precautionary approach.”
The CBD decision made an exception for small-scale experiments, but only under certain conditions, which SCoPEx does not meet: among them, carrying out experiments in “controlled settings” and acquiring the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities who might be affected.
Furthermore, in the case of SCoPEx, no critical voices from civil society or developing-country governments seem to have been considered.
SCoPEx’s promoters appear determined to take advantage of the US’s failure to ratify the CBD.
Rather than allow fossil-fuel companies that have ravaged the planet for profit to continue to act in their own interests, the world must establish a strong, multilateral democratic regulatory mechanism, which includes the option to ban certain technologies.
Until such an international system is in place, experiments such as SCoPEx — which threaten to act as a Trojan horse for deploying dangerous technologies at scale — must not be allowed to move forward.
Silvia Ribeiro is the Latin America director for ETC Group.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The US Senate’s passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which urges Taiwan’s inclusion in the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise and allocates US$1 billion in military aid, marks yet another milestone in Washington’s growing support for Taipei. On paper, it reflects the steadiness of US commitment, but beneath this show of solidarity lies contradiction. While the US Congress builds a stable, bipartisan architecture of deterrence, US President Donald Trump repeatedly undercuts it through erratic decisions and transactional diplomacy. This dissonance not only weakens the US’ credibility abroad — it also fractures public trust within Taiwan. For decades,
In 1976, the Gang of Four was ousted. The Gang of Four was a leftist political group comprising Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members: Jiang Qing (江青), its leading figure and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) last wife; Zhang Chunqiao (張春橋); Yao Wenyuan (姚文元); and Wang Hongwen (王洪文). The four wielded supreme power during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), but when Mao died, they were overthrown and charged with crimes against China in what was in essence a political coup of the right against the left. The same type of thing might be happening again as the CCP has expelled nine top generals. Rather than a
Taiwan Retrocession Day is observed on Oct. 25 every year. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government removed it from the list of annual holidays immediately following the first successful transition of power in 2000, but the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-led opposition reinstated it this year. For ideological reasons, it has been something of a political football in the democratic era. This year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) designated yesterday as “Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration,” turning the event into a conceptual staging post for its “restoration” to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Mainland Affairs Council on Friday criticized
The topic of increased intergenerational conflict has been making headlines in the past few months, showcasing a problem that would only grow as Taiwan approaches “super-aged society” status. A striking example of that tension erupted on the Taipei MRT late last month, when an apparently able-bodied passenger kicked a 73-year-old woman across the width of the carriage. The septuagenarian had berated and hit the young commuter with her bag for sitting in a priority seat, despite regular seats being available. A video of the incident went viral online. Altercations over the yielding of MRT seats are not common, but they are
RSS