Opponents of MCB, including groups of scientists and NGOs, argue that these measures may result in environmentally counterproductive behavioral responses, potentially eroding the political will to reduce emissions and leading to increased carbon emissions at the social-system level. Additionally, they point out that side effects may occur and that ensuring good governance for such interventions will be challenging. They believe it is still possible to avoid catastrophe and achieve a carbon-free society in time through more direct carbon mitigation efforts.
We have reached a point where we can no longer afford to do too little, too late. Continuing with business as usual is the riskier course of action. Climate Cooling Strategies, including Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), are addressing and responding to this risk. Geoengineering should not be seen as an alternative to mitigation but as a complementary strategy to buy time for necessary mitigation efforts.
Reframing geoengineering as a temporary measure to implement alongside mitigation can minimize many behavioral risks associated with such interventions. The concept of moral hazard, the idea that the availability of geoengineering might reduce the incentive to cut emissions, is often overstated. Instead, we must recognize that we have no choice but to explore all viable solutions, including MCB, to address the climate crisis.
The current albedo collapse is almost 1% per decade. The planetary reflectance is now measured by NASA at 98 watts per square meter compared to 100 w/m2 in 2001. The dimming of the world since 2015 has the warming effect of 100 ppm of CO2 emissions, according to James Hansen, Professor Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program Earth Institute at Columbia University.
- The idea of mitigation deterrence is incoherent and ideological. Reducing emissions cannot mitigate climate change in a relevant time frame, while higher albedo can. So it doesn’t make sense to say that increasing albedo could deter mitigation.
- We have not yet seen the full warming impact of current CO2, due to the delay caused by the mixing of the oceans. This has slowed the heat for a while.
- Reducing emissions can have virtually no effect on warming.
The urgency of the situation is clear. As highlighted by the Blue Cooling Initiative (BCI), we face critical thresholds in the next 5 to 10 years. Failure to implement effective measures could result in severe climate disruptions such as heatwaves, droughts, typhoons, and floods.
The opponents of MCB argue that it may distract from the real causes of climate change and pose governance challenges. However, these concerns can be addressed through transparent, inclusive, and scientifically grounded approaches. By organizing societal acceptance, securing funding for research and development, and building coalitions, we can effectively implement MCB while continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop sustainable practices.
Moreover, MCB offers a direct cooling effect, which can be particularly useful in mitigating heatwaves and protecting vulnerable ecosystems. This biomimetic climate cooling strategy leverages natural processes of our ocean’s salt spray to enhance cloud reflectivity, providing a potentially scalable and immediate impact on global temperatures.
In conclusion, the combined approach of short-term MCB and active long-term carbon mitigation is not a choice but a necessity. By embracing both strategies, we can reduce temperatures, protect ecosystems, and move towards a carbon-free society, ensuring a livable planet for future generations. The time for decisive action is now.
(Climate Risk Management (2021): ‘From moral hazard to risk-response feedback’)