Some want to ban vital geoengineering research. This would be a catastrophic mistake | Craig Segall and Baroness Bryony Worthington

A A few months ago, then-Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene held a hearing on her bill to ban research into “geoengineering,” which refers to technological interventions on climate, such as using reflective particles to reflect sunlight. The hearing represented something of a first — a Republican sounding the alarm about human activity altering the health of the planet. Of course, for centuries people have burned fossil fuels to power society, emitting greenhouse gases that are now overheating the planet.

Unfortunately, his hearing overran an urgent debate facing policymakers around the world: after centuries of accidental fossil fuel geoengineering, should we deliberately consider interventions to cool the planet and give room for the energy transition?

For some, even asking this question is taboo. On the right, Greene is not alone: ​​Anti-vaxxers and chemtrail conspiracy theorists are pushing to criminalize the research in every state and on Capitol Hill. On the left, some argue that simply recognizing that we might need tools beyond mitigation constitutes a “moral hazard.”

But two inconvenient truths should force us to reject bans on geoengineering research and reevaluate climate strategy. First, Earth’s climate system appears more sensitive to greenhouse gases than once hoped. Second, we are not reducing these gases fast enough. Not only do we need research into other tools; we need it sooner than expected.

Catastrophic impacts and dangerous feedback loops are becoming increasingly likely, but we continue to plan as if the status quo can continue. Solving the problem was already daunting, even before federal attacks on climate regulation and research. As longtime climate advocates and former public officials, we think it’s time to have a more honest conversation about what lies ahead — and what we need to do now to prepare for it.

We have each spent decades working on emissions reduction and clean energy policy. We remain convinced that mitigation is essential and must accelerate. But the belief that mitigation will be sufficient – ​​in itself and over time – is no longer tenable.

We have already changed the planet. By emitting greenhouse gases, we have disrupted Earth’s energy balance, triggered feedback loops, and pushed key systems to the brink of collapse. In fact, we have already geoengineered the climate – simply without intention, without governance, or without regard to consequences.

Scientists are increasingly alarmed. James Hansen, a seminal figure in climate science, has warned that the likelihood of a much warmer Earth is accelerating. In addition to shrouding the planet in heat-trapping gases, reflective ice disappears, clouds shift, and particle pollution increases. The planet is literally going dark.

As warming accelerates, so do the risks of irreversible damage. We would never stand idly by and hope for the best if there was another threat of this magnitude. Yet we have no overall plan, other than hoping that mitigation goes faster.

We are not honest – with ourselves or the public – about how little we have done to prepare for worst-case scenarios. Comprehensive planning to manage these risks and drive the energy transition and land use reform is not a distraction; it is the necessary next step in responsible climate action.

Reducing greenhouse gases remains the only long-term solution, and there are positive signs that we are limiting the rate of growth of human-caused emissions. But we started late, and climate change could mean that natural carbon cycles stop absorbing half of what we emit. If this happens, our ability to avoid dangerous impacts is significantly reduced.

We need a broader, more inclusive plan. This means significantly increasing investments in adaptation, resilience and emergency preparedness. It also means exploring, with care and rigor, potential interventions that could reduce peak warming or slow dangerous feedbacks. And that means rejecting efforts to dismantle research when we need answers most.

Some ideas – like reflecting sunlight with particles or brightening sea clouds to counteract ongoing darkening – would be temporary interventions that could buy time and avoid huge consequences. We need to start by developing credible options, then eliminate those that won’t work while maturing those that might. We are not calling for the deployment of any climate intervention. We demand that we truly know our options so that policymakers can make informed choices rather than making emergency decisions.

A serious research program will enable the world to make real choices. Ending the investigation closes the path to the knowledge we need to separate the reckless from the responsible. The alternative is much worse: a future where decisions are made in crisis, under pressure and without preparation.

Some argue that even discussing climate interventions creates “moral hazard.” But refusing to consider life-saving options is not moral clarity – it is moral failure. Climate justice means protecting people from suffering. This requires a plan that integrates mitigation, adaptation and risk reduction together. This work will have to be done. The only question is when and by whom. Right now, we still have a window to shape it in a safe, fair and inclusive way on a global scale. We need more leaders, more donors, and more governments committed – not to replace existing climate strategies, but to complement and supplement them.

It’s easy to reject ideas; the hard part is identifying approaches that might actually help and preparing before a growing crisis forces our hand.

• Craig Segall is the former Deputy Executive Director and Deputy General Counsel of the California Air Resources Board. He is also a former senior vice president of Evergreen Action and a longtime climate advocate. It has academic seats at the University of Edinburgh, New York University and the University of California, Berkeley. The opinions expressed in this article are his own.

• Baroness Bryony Worthington was created a life peer in 2011, giving her a seat in the UK House of Lords where she served as Shadow Energy Minister. She has over 25 years of experience in climate, energy and environmental policy within NGOs, public and private sectors.