Skip to content
Tech News
← Back to articles

This road map could help us decide whether to deploy solar geoengineering

read original get Under the Sky We Make by Kimberly Nicholas → more articles
Why This Matters

Solar geoengineering has drawn hundreds of studies but no coordinated research agenda, leaving major uncertainties about efficacy and side effects. Reflective's new roadmap puts a price and timeline on closing those gaps ($370M over a decade if coordinated, versus ~$1.4B over 20 years if not), and controversially argues for outdoor stratospheric experiments. It sharpens a debate that is as much about governance and legitimacy as about science.

Key Takeaways
Worth a Look

Under the Sky We Make by Kimberly Nicholas — If solar geoengineering roadmaps have you wondering what climate interventions actually mean for everyday life, this book breaks down the science and the choices in plain language. It's a great companion for readers who want context beyond the headlines about stratospheric aerosol injection.

See Under the Sky We Make by Kimberly Nicholas on Amazon → Affiliate link — we may earn a commission on purchases, at no extra cost to you. Product picked by AI based on this article; it is not a tested recommendation.

But even after at least hundreds of studies on the concept, known as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), big gaps remain in the scientific understanding of how well it would work and what else it might do—and there has been no systematic plan for clearing up that uncertainty.

Reflective, a research organization that funds studies on solar geoengineering, has today attempted to fill that gap with the release of its SAI Research Roadmap.

“Our mission is to equip the world with the data and tools required for informed decision-making about sunlight reflection fast enough to matter,” says Dakota Gruener, the organization’s cofounder and chief executive. “Our sense is the world may need to make very consequential decisions on timelines far shorter than our research system is prepared for.”

The hope is the exercise will guide scientific efforts and encourage philanthropies or government agencies to fund high-priority work and “responsibly accelerate research,” says Gruener.

If all the work is done in a coordinated way, it would take about a decade and cost around $370 million—and if it’s not, it would require roughly 20 years and nearly $1.4 billion, the report estimates.

While Gruener stresses that Reflective doesn’t advocate using this form of solar geoengineering, the report does make the case for conducting outdoor experiments, which would release successively larger amounts of sulfur dioxide (or materials that would convert into it) in the stratosphere to observe what happens.

That is a controversial standpoint. Since 2002, hundreds of academics have signed an open letter calling for a ban on outdoor experiments and an "international non-use agreement," arguing that such a powerful technology could never be governed in a globally equitable way. And some signatories argue that more studies can never address one of the biggest questions about using solar geoengineering: Who gets to do it.

“The first-order questions, from my perspective, are not technical,” Aarti Gupta, co-initiator of the non-use initiative and professor of global environmental governance at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, told me in a recent on-stage interview.