T EC HN OL OGY FAC T SHEE T SER IE S

Solar Geoengineering

CONTRIBUTORS:
Lizzie Burns
David Keith
Peter Irvine
Joshua Horton

EDITOR:
Bogdan Belei
The Technology Factsheet Series was designed to provide a brief overview of each technology and related

policy considerations. These papers are not meant to be exhaustive.

Technology and Public Purpose Project

Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Harvard Kennedy School
79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

www.belfercenter.org/TAPP

CRCS Center for Research on Computation and Society

Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138

crcs.seas.harvard.edu

Statements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not imply

endorsement by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School, the Belfer Center for Science and

International Affairs, or the Center for Research on Computation and Applied Sciences.

Design and layout by Andrew Facini

Copyright 2019, President and Fellows of Harvard College

Printed in the United States of America

Executive Summary
Solar geoengineering refers to a set of emerging technologies that could alter the Earth’s radiative bal-
ance—perhaps through injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, where they would reflect a small fraction of
sunlight back into space—reducing the amount of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. It could not
replace reducing emissions (mitigation), coping with a changing climate (adaptation), or carbon dioxide
removal (CDR). Yet it does have the potential to supplement these efforts, and it might provide reductions
in climate risk that are unachievable by other means.

What is Solar Geoengineering?

Solar geoengineering has the potential to reduce climate impacts around the globe, but it also carries its own
risks and uncertainties. The science and the governance are very challenging. The question at issue now is
not about deployment. It is about whether there should be a serious research effort on solar geoengineering
to advance understanding on the efficacy, benefits, and risks, and to identify strategies that might make it
safer.

Proposed solar geoengineering technologies include:

• marine cloud brightening

• cirrus cloud thinning

• space-based techniques

• stratospheric aerosol scattering

With the exception of cirrus cloud thinning, which would attempt to reduce the thin, high-altitude cirrus
clouds to allow more long-wave radiation from the Earth to space, all solar geoengineering proposals would
aim to reflect away a very small fraction of sunlight back to space to partially offset the energy imbalance
caused by accumulating greenhouse gases. For example, marine cloud brightening would attempt to
brighten marine clouds to reflect more sunlight back into space. Space-based technologies would attempt
to reflect a small fraction of sunlight away from the Earth by positioning sun shields in space. And strato-
spheric aerosol scattering would introduce tiny reflective particles, such as sulfate aerosols or perhaps
calcium carbonate, into the upper atmosphere, where they could scatter a small fraction of sunlight back
into space. Other methods include tropospheric aerosols and increasing the reflectivity of crops or other
land cover.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 1

Each method introduces its own set of benefits and risks. This brief will focus most closely on stratospheric
aerosol scattering, given its potential to bring the largest global benefits with the fewest risks, and its ability
to do so at a cost and technical scenario that is within society’s reach. But much more research needs to be
done into all methods, particularly in the event that one day, a combination of technologies is considered
the safest and most effective approach.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that several solar geoengineering proposals mirror human actions or nat-
ural processes that reflect sunlight back into space and cool temperatures.1 For example, coal- fired power
plants release aerosols into the troposphere that scatter light and increase the reflectivity of clouds, leading
to cooling that offsets a significant fraction of the warming from greenhouse gases. Some major volcanic
eruptions (e.g., Pinatubo, Tambora, Krakatoa) released substantial amounts of aerosols into the upper
atmosphere, the stratosphere, producing a large transient cooling that provides a valuable natural analog to
stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.

Why could solar geoengineering not replace efforts to reduce emissions?

As noted above, solar geoengineering could not eliminate all of the damages caused by green-house gas
(GHG)-driven warming, even if it tried to restore global average temperatures to pre-industrial levels.2 Put
simply: solar geoengineering could not be anti-CO2. This is because climate variables, such as temperature
and precipitation, would respond differently to any cooling caused by solar geoengineering (by reflecting
short wave radiation) compared to the warming caused by GHGs (by trapping long wave radiation). For ex-
ample, if temperatures were restored to pre-industrial levels via solar geoengineering, the water cycle would
be weaker than it was in the 1700s.

Still, strong evidence shows that if solar geoengineering were applied evenly—as might be produced by
stratospheric aerosol geoengineering—and adjusted to offset roughly half of the warming from GHGs, then
the change in important climate variables would be reduced in most locations and increased in only a small
percentage of the land surface.3 Relatedly, non-uniform or strongly patchy cooling—as might be produced
by marine cloud brightening—will generally produce more unevenness in the climate response.

Marine Cloud Brightening, Cirrus Cloud Thinning, and Cooling Effects

There is much lower confidence that a substantial cooling (~2 Wm-2) could be achieved with marine cloud
brightening or cirrus thinning compared to stratospheric aerosols.4 The magnitude, and even sign, of the
effect is uncertain in both cases, and both are applicable over a limited domain of susceptible clouds, so may
not be scalable to achieve a substantial cooling.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 2

For example, marine cloud brightening is most effective in a specific kind of marine boundary layer cloud that
covers ~10 percent of the Earth’s surface, so the cooling produced is inherently non-uniform. Cirrus cloud
thinning acts primarily by increasing outgoing thermal radiation, so the nature of its cooling is more similar to
GHGs than most other solar geoengineering methods. However, unlike GHGs, its cooling would be patchy.

Furthermore, for both marine cloud brightening and cirrus thinning, the spatial pattern of cooling could be
adjusted on a timescale of hours to days, a capability that would likely allow some form of weather control.5
Stratospheric aerosols could only be adjusted over years, so they could not be used for weather control.

Lastly, engineering estimates of the cost and technical feasibility of delivery are much less certain for ma-
rine cloud brightening than stratospheric aerosols,6 and no technical feasibility assessment of cirrus cloud
thinning has yet been made.

Stratospheric Aerosols and Cooling Effects

There is high confidence that stratospheric aerosols could achieve sufficient cooling to offset half the
warming from a doubling of CO2 concentrations (~2 Wm-2)7 This is largely due to the way in which the
stratosphere circulates. By choosing where to release aerosols, a fairly uniform global aerosol layer could be
created, or the aerosol layer could be thicker at high latitudes or in one hemisphere or the other to achieve a
certain outcome.8 That said, the circulation in the stratosphere strongly limits what can be achieved. For ex-
ample, it is not possible to limit cooling to one country. Additionally, the roughly one- to two-year lifetime
of stratospheric aerosols constrain how rapidly this pattern of cooling could be adjusted.

Public Purpose Considerations

When used in moderation and combined with emissions cuts, stratospheric solar geoengineering has the
potential to reduce climate changes around the globe. For example, climate models have consistently shown that
it could reduce local average temperatures, extreme temperatures, changes in water availability, and the intensity
of tropical storms.9 It could also reduce the rate of sea-level rise,10 as well as the coral bleaching events that are
caused by rising sea surface temperatures (the damage to coral reefs is largely caused by rising sea surface tem-
peratures, followed by intensifying ocean acidification).11 Solar geoengineering could also reduce poleward shifts
in species ranges,12 which has been posing serious risks to tropical fisheries. And it could lessen the amount of
sea-ice loss, which could reduce the impacts on high-latitude ecosystems and climate, and help to limit changes
in ocean circulation and glacier melt.13 Furthermore, it could reduce some carbon cycle feedbacks, such as the
release of carbon dioxide and methane from melting permafrost, which accelerate warming.14

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 3

In sum, solar geoengineering has the potential to significantly benefit society and the environment. In
economic terms, the potential long-term benefits likely exceed $1 trillion. This is quite large, particularly
when compared to the direct costs of deploying stratospheric solar geoengineering, which are about $2 to
$10 billion per year.15

Yet, any benefits come with novel risks and significant uncertainty.

This is partly because solar geoengineering could not perfectly offset the warming caused by greenhouse
gases. It would have different effects on different climate variables, as mentioned above. For example, by
affecting temperatures differently than precipitation, solar geoengineering raises concerns and uncertainties
surrounding the regional distribution of impacts, despite potential global benefits. Recent evidence suggests
that solar geoengineering that would aim to halve warming (rather than fully offset it) could moderate sev-
eral important climate change impacts in almost all regions (including extreme storms).16 But much more
research needs to be done to advance understanding.

Another challenge is that solar geoengineering (largely) does not address ocean acidification.17 Every year,
the ocean absorbs about one-quarter of the carbon dioxide humans emit into the atmosphere, changing
the chemistry of the oceans and harming marine ecosystems. Given that solar geoengineering would not
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere directly, but rather would reflect sunlight back into space,
it could do little to address this serious problem except via carbon cycle feedbacks mentioned above, the
process through which additional carbon is emitted into the atmosphere upon additional warming.18

Solar geoengineering could have further impacts on air quality, the ozone layer, and stratospheric dynamics,
which would vary depending on the type of material used. Sulfate aerosol, for instance, the most frequently
analyzed proposal for solar geoengineering, may reduce some climate risks, but it would also reduce the
ozone layer and heat the lower tropical stratosphere. Early studies suggest that calcium carbonate might
actually increase the ozone layer and reduce the amount of stratospheric heating compared to sulfate aero-
sol,19 but much more research needs to be done to better understand if it holds true under real stratospheric
conditions.

So how can one understand several of these risks in the context of climate change? The risks that would
arise from stratospheric heating are not yet well understood and need to be studied. But we have started
to learn more about the direct health risks arising from increased particulate matter and decreased strato-
spheric ozone from stratospheric aerosols. These latter risks are small—one or two orders of magnitude less
than climate impacts.

For example, if stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection were adjusted to produce the same cooling as is
produced by tropospheric sulfate aerosol pollution, the mortality from the stratospheric sulfates would

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 4

be roughly 1,000-fold smaller.20 This is because current polluting activities release sulfate near the surface,
exposing populations to harm before it is rained out, whereas stratospheric geoengineering would release
sulfates in the upper atmosphere, which would rain out as they make their way down to the surface, lim-
iting the exposure of populations to this harm. Stratospheric sulfates would also be deposited broadly at
the surface rather than concentrated near to population centers, which is the current case with polluting
activities.21

The risks that could arise from altered precipitation patterns and other climate variables could be larger
than these non-climatic effects. However, strong evidence shows that if solar geoengineering is spatially
uniform—as might be produced by stratospheric aerosol geoengineering—and adjusted to offset roughly
half the warming from GHGs, then the change in important climate variables would be reduced in most
locations and increased in only a small percentage of the land surface.

Current State of Research

Research could reduce uncertainty about the technology’s potential benefits and risks, but for decades, re-
search into solar geoengineering has been limited. This has been in part because of a fear that it could lesson
efforts to cut emissions. There have also been concerns pertaining to its ethics, governance, and potential
impacts on the climate system.

Consequently, funding for solar geoengineering research around the world has been scarce. China,
Germany, Australia, and the U.K. have funded research, but the U.S. government has funded very little. In
fact, there is currently less than $10 million USD spent globally toward solar geoengineering-related work.22
Recently, a larger set of climate scientists have begun to work on this topic using existing funds for climate
research, but formal funding remains miniscule.

Yet, calls for research are growing. Major environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists have begun to support
careful research. The U.S. National Academy also supports research and has launched a study to develop a
research agenda and recommend research governance approaches for solar geoengineering (to be complet-
ed in early 2020). The U.S. also published the Climate Science Special Report, which discussed geoengineer-
ing and called for further research. The report was a key part of the Fourth National Climate Assessment,
which the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) oversaw.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 5

Research Issues for Consideration
There are several linked challenges that solar geoengineering research could address:

• The forcing challenge (Can it be done?): To develop practical solar geoengineering proposals that
could achieve a substantial cooling would require iteration between science and engineering to en-
sure the assumptions made in scientific studies align with the performance criteria of the engineering
studies:

■■ Scientific aspects: Research would evaluate whether the proposed intervention would result in a
substantial cooling, e.g., demonstrating that sea-salt aerosols with certain properties reaching the
base of stratocumulus clouds under certain conditions would result in a substantial increase in
cloud albedo.

■■ Engineering aspects: Research would evaluate whether the proposed intervention could be
achieved through practical means, e.g., with a device designed to produce the required sea-salt
aerosols and loft them to the required altitude.

• The climate prediction challenge (How would it change the climate?): The problem of predicting the
climate’s response to a specific deployment of solar geoengineering is closely related to the problem of
predicting response to other anthropogenic influences, such as aerosol pollution and GHGs. Useful
predictions require well-specified interventions. This is a challenge for climate science.

• The objective challenge (What is the climate goal?): The deployment of solar geoengineering could
be tailored to meet specific objectives, within the constraints identified by the forcing and prediction
challenges. Research will not be effective without some specification of the goal. Defining the climate
goal is a challenge for public policy, albeit one that ought to be coupled to advances in the science and
engineering of solar geoengineering, and to growing understanding of climate impacts.

• The management challenge (How to deploy solar geoengineering to meet its goal?): To pursue a
specific objective through solar geoengineering deployment, it will be necessary to make short-term
deployment decisions, despite substantial uncertainties. These decisions will require observations that
likely include new climate observing systems, along with development of forecast tools and feedback
controls.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 6

Policy Issues for Consideration
Important governance issues include:

• Moral hazard: There is serious concern that talking about, researching, and/or deploying solar
geoengineering will reduce incentives to cut emissions—this problem is often referred to as “moral
hazard.” It is highly likely that some fossil fuel interests will seek to exploit solar geoengineering to
block mitigation.

• Slippery slope: There is also concern that research on solar geoengineering could create powerful
constituencies in favor of eventual deployment. Such a potential for socio-technical lock-in is some-
times called a “slippery slope.”

• Balancing efforts: Small-scale research may have negligible environmental impacts but entail special
socio-political risks (such as moral hazard or socio-technical lock-in). This creates a need to balance
investigation and knowledge production, on the one hand, against precaution and risk mitigation on
the other. Existing research governance frameworks may not strike an appropriate balance.

• Unilateralism: The apparently low direct costs of solar geoengineering mean that one or a few states
could in theory impose deployment on the rest of the world. This potential for unilateralism raises
concerns about global stability, justice, and fairness.

• Winners and Losers: The variable distributional effects of any solar geoengineering deployment may
create “winners and losers” compared to a world without solar geoengineering. This could foster
disagreements in the context of negotiating or implementing solar geoengineering.

• Termination Shock: Solar geoengineering may need to be maintained for a long time. If deployment
ends before atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have been sufficiently reduced, “termina-
tion shock” may occur—the rate of change resulting from unmasked climate change would be much
higher and more damaging than would have occurred without solar geoengineering.

• Threat multiplier: While it is unlikely that solar geoengineering could be “weaponized” due to its
inherently low controllability and predictability, it could function as a “threat multiplier,” just like
climate change.

No comprehensive national or international governance frameworks exist for solar geoengineering. The
nongovernmental Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, however, is actively working to
promote awareness and discussion of solar geoengineering within and among governments.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 7

Notes:
1
Robock, A., D. G. MacMartin, R. Duren, and M. W. Christensen (2013), “Studying geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs.” Climatic Change 121: 445–458.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0777-5.

2
Kravitz, B. et al. (2013), “Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP).” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118:
8320–8332. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646.

3
Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D (2019), “Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards.” Nature
Climate Change, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0398-8.

4
Boucher, O. et al. (2013), “Clouds and Aerosols.” Chapter 7 in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. T. F. Stocker, et al.). Cambridge University Press. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_
Chapter07_FINAL.pdf.

5
Hoffman, R. N. (2002), “Controlling the Global Weather.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 83: 241–248. https://doi.
org/10.1175/1520-0477(2002)083<0241:CTGW>2.3.CO;2.

6
Latham, J. et al. (2012), “Marine cloud brightening.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences 370: 4217–4262.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086.

7
Boucher, O. et al. (2013), “Clouds and Aerosols.”

8
Dai Z., D. K. Weisenstein, and D. W. Keith (2018), “Tailoring Meridional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering.” Geophysical Research
Letters 45: 1030-1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076472.

9
Jones, A. C., Hawcroft, M. K., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Guo, X., & Moore, J. C. (2018), “Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar
Geoengineering.” Earth’s Future, 6(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000720; Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D. (2019).

10
Irvine, P. J., Keith, D. W., & Moore, J. (2018), “Brief communication: Understanding solar geoengineering’s potential to limit sea level rise requires attention from cryosphere
experts.” The Cryosphere, 12(7), 2501–2513. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2501-2018.

11
Kwiatkowski, L., Cox, P., Halloran, P. R., Mumby, P. J., & Wiltshire, A. J. (2015), “Coral bleaching under unconventional scenarios of climate warming and ocean
acidification.” Nature Clim. Change, 5(8), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2655.

12
Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., & Zambri, B. (2018). “Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering
implementation and termination.” Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0

13
Fasullo, J. T., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., & Simpson, I. R. (2018). “Persistent polar ocean warming in a strategically geoengineered
climate.” Nature Geoscience, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0249-7.

14
Keith, D. W., Wagner, G., & Zabel, C. L. (2017), “Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden.” Nature Climate Change, 7(9), 617–619. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate3376

15
Smith, W., & Wagner, G. (2018). “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment.” Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 124001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d

16
Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D. (2019),

17
Cao, L. (2018), “The Effects of Solar Radiation Management on the Carbon Cycle.” Current Climate Change Reports, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0088-z.

18
Keith, D. W., Wagner, G., & Zabel, C. L. (2017).

19
Keith, D. W., Weisenstein, D. K., Dykema, J. A., & Keutsch, F. N. (2016), “Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 201615572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615572113.

20
Eastham, S. D., D. W. Keith, and S. R. H. Barrett. (2018), “Mortality tradeoff between air quality and skin cancer from changes in stratospheric ozone.” Environmental
Research Letters 13, published online March 9. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaad2e.

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 8

21
Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., & Keith, D. (2019);
Keith, D. W. and P. J. Irvine. (2016), “Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks - A research hypothesis for the next decade.” Earth’s Future 4: 549–559.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000465.

22
Necheles, E. Burns, E., & Keith, D. (2018), “Funding for Solar Geoengineering Research from 2008 to 2018.” Solar Geoengineering Research Blog, https://geoengineer-
ing.environment.harvard.edu/blog/funding-solar-geoengineering

Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering 9