Geoengineering Could Slow Down Global Warming by Distributing Nanoparticles over the Polar Caps
In the coming years, several climate tipping points could be reached, triggering a dynamic that would persist even if climate change were stopped. This could lead to further melting of the ice caps, even if global warming were halted. However, according to Wake Smith of Yale University, reaching these tipping points could be prevented through limited geoengineering. Smith’s concept involves military tankers distributing nanoparticles over the polar caps. The microscopic particles would reflect sunlight and slow down climate warming. Smith believes this would lead to a cooling of the polar caps and a reduction in sea level rise.
The concept of limited geoengineering against the effects of climate change is based on the use of 125 military tankers. These would distribute the particles in the atmosphere at around 13,000 meters altitude on the 60th parallel in spring and summer. The natural air currents at this height would then carry the particles to the poles. According to Smith, 13 million tons of sulfur dioxide per year would cool the polar caps by 2 degrees Celsius. The temperatures in the mid-latitudes would also decrease slightly. To distribute the sulfur dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, approximately 175,000 flights would be necessary, costing a total of around eleven billion euros per year.
The so-called solar radiation management (SRM) is controversial in science. Recently, researchers from various institutes and universities called for experiments in this area to be banned by an international agreement because the risks are difficult to assess. The responsible UN Deputy Secretary-General Janosz Pasztor also stated that the risks of SRM could be easily ignored because the measure is “dangerously cheap.” However, Smith sees hardly any risks in his concept because only one percent of the world’s population lives in the immediately affected zones. Moreover, according to him, the risk is reasonable because the polar regions are warming particularly quickly. “If the cost-benefit analysis is positive somewhere, then it is there.”
As reported by Sky News, Smith also sees his concept as merely a way to give humanity more time to move away from fossil fuels. The measure would not combat human-made climate change but only prevent a central symptom. “It’s aspirin, not penicillin, and not a substitute for decarbonization.”
