Last year, several environmentalists presented key climate negotiators with an unprecedented idea:
a technology called solar geoengineering could protect their countries from the worst effects of climate change.
Although they have insisted on being impartial, the representatives of the Initiative of climate governance Carnegie researchers said these technologies, which promise to be able to reshape the climate itself by weakening the sun’s rays or reflecting sunlight away from Earth, could quickly and cheaply change the course of the planet. dangerous upswing temperatures and that poor countries could benefit most.
It wasn’t the first time that Westerners had tried to convince Africans that solar engineering projects could benefit us.
And it won’t be the last.
In May, another international non-profit organization, the World Commission on the Reduction of Climate Risks from Excessbased in Paris, will organize an event in Nairobi to help raise support for research on solar geoengineering and other related technologies that he says could help reduce risks when the world exceeds its global warming goals.
As a climate expert, I find these environmental manipulation techniques extremely risky.
And as an African climate expert, I strongly oppose the idea of Africa becoming a testing ground for its use.
While solar geoengineering can help divert heat and improve Earth’s weather (a possibility that hasn’t been proven on a major scale) it’s not a long-term solution to climate change.
Send the message to the world that we can continue to consume and pollute excessively because we will be able to solve the problem through engineering.
The coolest solar engineering technology would use balloons or an airplane to spray huge quantities of aerosols – tiny particles of, for example, sulfur dioxide or man-made nanoparticles – into the stratosphere to decrease sunlight.
Is called solar radiation management and is highly speculative.
Without using the entire Earth as a laboratory, it’s impossible to know if it would mitigate anything, let alone how it would affect ecosystems, people and the global climate.
Other proposed techniques are cover deserts with plastic, genetically modify plants to have brighter, more reflective leaves, create or whiten clouds, and deploy millions of mirrors in space.
The goal of all of this is counteract the warming reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet and reflecting it back into the stratosphere.
Africa is already feeling the effects of climate change, including droughts, floods and unpredictable weather.
And while geoengineering argues that we see these technologies as a solution to these problems, these technologies run the risk of altering local and regional weather patterns, such as by intensifying droughts or floods or influencing monsoon cycles.
And the long-term impact on regional climate and seasons is still largely unknown.
Millions, perhaps billions, of people could lose their livelihoods.
In theory, these technologies should continue to be used permanently to stem warming.
Stopping their use would release the suppressed warming of carbon dioxide that is still building up in the atmosphere in a temperature spike known as a “termination shock.”
A study found that the temperature change after finishing solar radiation management could be up to four times greater than that caused by climate change itself.
The other risk is that geoengineering will divert attention and investment away from building renewable energy and other climate solutions in Africa.
The continent received only one two percent of global investment in renewable energy over the past two decades and lack of access to capital is perhaps the biggest obstacle for countries to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
However, funding doesn’t appear to be an issue for geoengineering researchers, especially those based in the United States.
The solar geoengineering research program at Harvard University is expanding rapidly, with support from Bill Gates and Silicon Valley philanthropists, while George Soros recently announced its intention to support solar geoengineering projects in the Arctic.
This month, the University of Chicago also announced the creation of the Climate Engineering Systems Initiative to partner with national laboratories to explore these and other strategies.
But should we really study geoengineering?
More than 400 climate scientists and academics from around the world asked International agreement on the non-use of solar geoengineering.
If it goes before the United Nations, it could mean a ban on real-world research on this technology.
In any case, its proponents have tried to entice African governments by offering to fund research projects, arguing that more research will shed more light on the dangers and benefits of this technology.
One such organization, the Degrees Initiative, says its mission is to put “developing countries at the center” of the debate on solar radiation management.
But this seems to be just a way of trying to make Africa a test case for an unproven technology.
Indeed, further study of this hypothetical solution seems like steps towards development and quicksand towards its eventual distribution.
A shocking example of rogue solar geoengineering is the case of US startup Make Sunsets, which recently launched balloons from Mexico to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to offset carbon emissions.
Data on the final position of the balloons, what happened to the particles released and any impact on heating they have never been made public.
The Mexican government was unaware of the exercise until after it was carried out, at which time authorities announced a ban on solar geoengineering activities.
The decision to test the technology without permission or notice was rash, and the decision to do so in Latin America echoed some of the worst aspects of colonialism.
African nations must resolutely oppose allowing their territories to be used for experimental exercises such as these.
They should also join efforts to enforce the de facto moratorium (under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity) on the development and deployment of these technologies.
These technologies are potentially dangerous ea great distraction of the real change we all know the wealthiest nations must make if we have any hope of avoiding climate devastation.
c.2023 The New York Times Society
Source: Clarin
Mary Ortiz is a seasoned journalist with a passion for world events. As a writer for News Rebeat, she brings a fresh perspective to the latest global happenings and provides in-depth coverage that offers a deeper understanding of the world around us.