I am sure this is how Snowpiercer starts…In this tumultuous climate, scientists find themselves compelled to pursue increasingly audacious solutions to combat the crisis. One such initiative, a staggering $66 million project, seeks to harness cutting-edge technology to reflect sunlight back into space, a measure so bold it evokes images straight from dystopian climate fiction. This ambitious strategy invites deep contemplation about the fragility of our world and the unsettling questions it raises regarding the future of our planet.

So, What’s “Sun Dimming” All About?

Solar geoengineering sounds like science fiction, yet UK scientists now pursue it as a potential reality. Researchers plan to release particles high into our atmosphere to bounce sunlight away from Earth.

Mark Symes, project manager at ARIA (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), explains why they’ve launched this research: “Having spoken to hundreds of researchers, we concluded that a critical missing part of our understanding was real-world, physical data. These would show us whether any of these potential approaches would work and what their effects might be.”

Small-scale indoor testing may begin within weeks, followed by more ambitious outdoor experiments. Eventually, high-flying planes would release sulfate particles into our stratosphere, mimicking what happens naturally during significant volcanic eruptions. When volcanoes like Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1992, they cooled the Earth temporarily by pushing reflective particles skyward.

Alternative materials under consideration include aluminum, calcium carbonate, saltwater plumes, and even diamond dust. Each carries different benefits and risks, highlighting how experimental this approach remains.

Why Would We Even Think About Doing This?

Scientists are turning toward such radical solutions because conventional climate approaches fail. Despite international agreements to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, most nations lag behind their emission reduction targets.

Climate disasters now strike with alarming frequency. Last year, South Asia endured unprecedented spring heat waves, China suffered months of extreme heat, Europe faced severe drought, and Pakistan experienced catastrophic flooding. All this occurred with global temperatures rising just over one degree Celsius.

James Hansen, a pioneering NASA climate scientist, warns that 2024 could push global temperatures “off the chart” as warming combines with El Niño conditions, potentially crossing that critical 1.5°C threshold.

Against this backdrop, some scientists view solar geoengineering as potentially necessary insurance, not replacing emission cuts but supplementing them when traditional approaches prove insufficient.

ARIA: Behind UK’s Sun-Dimming Plans

Few people know about ARIA, yet this agency now leads efforts that could affect our entire planet. Created in 2021 under Boris Johnson’s government, ARIA originated as Dominic Cummings’ brainchild. With a budget of £800 million, approximately £57 million is now being invested in various “climate cooling” projects.

Critics question both ARIA’s accountability and spending practices. Executive salaries consume £4.1 million annually for just 37 staff members. ARIA CEO Ilan Gur earns approximately £450,000 yearly – triple what Britain’s Prime Minister makes.

Cambridge University Professor Mike Hulme cautions: “[The sum of] £57 million is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to be spent on this assortment of speculative technologies intended to manipulate the Earth’s climate.”

Many wonder whether public funds should support such speculative ventures, especially amid economic challenges. ARIA operates with unusual autonomy, is exempt from freedom of information requests, and is mandated to pursue “high-risk” research normally avoided by public sector organizations.

ARIA aims to mirror DARPA, America’s defense research agency credited with developing GPS, drones, and internet foundations. Yet critics note DARPA maintained clear defense-focused objectives, while ARIA appears more scattered in its approach.

What’s the Upside if Sun Dimming Works?

Despite valid concerns, successful solar geoengineering could offer significant benefits. Early modeling suggests this approach might provide relatively inexpensive planetary cooling compared to other climate interventions.

Scientific evidence indicates solar geoengineering would likely produce substantial, rapid cooling worldwide. Additional benefits might include slowing sea-level rise, preserving sea ice, reducing extreme weather, and protecting vulnerable regions.

Regional studies show varied impacts. Research from South Africa suggests solar geoengineering might prevent devastating droughts like those nearly forcing Cape Town to shut off water supplies in 2018. For nations facing immediate climate threats, such interventions could buy precious adaptation time.

Cost estimates remain startlingly low compared to other climate approaches. Harvard Environmental Law Review estimates direct deployment costs at several billion dollars annually – far less than global fossil fuel subsidies or climate adaptation expenses.

What Could Go Wrong? Science and Ethics

For every potential benefit, scientists identify corresponding risks. Weather patterns operate as interconnected systems – cooling one region might inadvertently harm another.

Scientists studying West African climate predict geoengineering could worsen desertification across already vulnerable areas. Bangladeshi researchers found malaria might increase in some Asian regions while decreasing elsewhere. Such uneven impacts raise profound ethical questions about who decides when intervention benefits outweigh costs.

Perhaps most alarming, scientists warn about “termination shock.” Once started, geoengineering requires ongoing maintenance. If suddenly stopped due to war, economic crisis, or changing politics, temperatures would rapidly rebound to previous trajectories, potentially causing catastrophic disruption.

Michael Mann and Raymond Pierrehumbert, leading climate scientists, explain this danger: “Some proponents insist we can always stop if we don’t like the result. Well yes, we can stop. Just like if you’re being kept alive by a ventilator with no hope of a cure, you can turn it off — and suffer the consequences.”

Many indigenous communities actively oppose these technologies. When Harvard researchers planned atmospheric tests over northern Sweden, Saami reindeer herders and thirty other indigenous groups protested, viewing such manipulation as disrespectful toward natural systems.

Who Gets to Decide About Dimming the Sun?

Perhaps most concerning, no clear governance structure exists for managing global geoengineering. Who decides when to deploy such technologies? Who controls intensity and duration? How would nations resolve conflicts when impacts affect different regions unequally?

Consider this scenario: What happens if India, suffering catastrophic heat waves, unilaterally deploys sulfur particles, only to see Pakistan experience devastating drought? Or if China responds to another summer of extreme heat by atmospheric intervention that disrupts Southeast Asian monsoons? Such scenarios involving nuclear powers sharing disputed borders become frighteningly plausible.

Frank Biermann from Utrecht University leads hundreds of scholars opposing geoengineering precisely because of governance challenges: “There’s lots of international treaties, and agreement among scientists to stop or restrict or prohibit certain technologies”—bioweapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel land mines. “Human cloning, Antarctic mining. People say we’re against modernity. We are not. We don’t want to block climate research—we want an agreement not to use a certain technology because it’s not good for the world.”

Many fear fossil fuel companies may eagerly support geoengineering as an excuse to continue business as usual, delaying necessary transitions away from carbon-intensive energy systems.

What Do People on the Front Lines Think?

Communities facing immediate climate threats hold mixed views about geoengineering. Anote Tong, former President of Kiribati—a Pacific island nation averaging just six feet above sea level—joined an international commission studying geoengineering options.

While viewing geoengineering as “prime example of our arrogance,” Tong acknowledges sobering reality: “Geoengineering as possible solution to this catastrophe will definitely become only option of last resort if we as global community continue on path we have been going. Point will come when it has to be either geoengineering or total destruction.”

Such voices remind us that climate change impacts fall unevenly across humanity. Nations contributing least to emissions often face the most severe consequences, raising questions about climate justice when considering radical interventions.

What’s the Sensible Way Forward?

How should humanity proceed given both the promise and peril of sun-dimming technologies?

First, we must accelerate the transition to renewable energy. Most geoengineering researchers emphasize that this is a vastly preferable solution. Solar panels, wind turbines, and energy storage continue dropping in price while fossil fuels grow increasingly expensive—economic reality increasingly favors clean energy.

Second, we need transparent, inclusive research governance. Any atmospheric experiments must involve affected communities from planning stages forward, particularly indigenous peoples and vulnerable nations. Research should prioritize understanding regional impacts over simply exploring technical feasibility.

Third, international governance frameworks must develop before, not after, deployment becomes technically viable. Waiting until a climate crisis forces hasty deployment risks disastrous outcomes.

Mulling Over the Sun Dimming Dilemma

Unlike the fictional Snowpiercer scenario, our climate challenges offer no neat narrative arcs or cinematic conclusions. Instead, we face complex trade-offs demanding both scientific rigor and moral wisdom.

The sun’s dimming represents both technological hubris and acknowledgment of our climate predicament. It’s very considerate, speaks volumes about our collective failure to address carbon emissions decades earlier.

As research progresses, profound questions remain: Can we manage planetary systems we barely understand? Should any nation—or company—possess the power to alter the global climate? How do we weigh immediate climate suffering against uncertain future risks?

Whatever path forward emerges, our civilization now enters uncharted territory, where human decisions actively shape planetary systems upon which all life depends. The most vital question remains not whether we can dim the sun but whether we possess the wisdom to wield such godlike powers responsibly.