DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Debate among scientists: Should we darken the Sun against global warming?

2026-07-31 23:55:39Lifestyle SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Debate among scientists: Should we darken the Sun against global warming?
Photo illustration

Solar geoengineering is generating increased research and interest, but many experts consider it dangerous and counterproductive. The idea of ​​dimming the Sun's rays to combat global warming is not new.

In 1816, the world experienced the “year without a summer” after the giant eruption of the Tambora volcano in Indonesia. The ash and gases released into the atmosphere blocked some of the sunlight, lowering global temperatures by 0.7 °C.

Today, scientists are considering artificially recreating this effect. This technique involves temporarily modifying the atmosphere's ability to reflect sunlight back into space, reducing the heat that reaches Earth.

Its implementation requires colossal investments and a broad international consensus, as the consequences would affect the entire planet. For optimists, this is the ideal solution to curb the rise in temperatures. For skeptics, a major geopolitical and environmental risk.

The theory was first put forward in the 1970s by Soviet climatologist Mikhail Budyko, who suggested injecting sulfates at high altitudes. The discussion became more serious in 2006 after a study by Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen.

So far, most research is based on mathematical models and computer simulations, with modest funding of a few tens of millions of euros per year.

Efforts at practical testing have met with strong resistance. Last year, Harvard University planned an experimental project in northern Sweden to test chemical-free delivery systems, but it was blocked by a petition from the indigenous Sami people.

They accused scientists of not consulting them and expressed concerns about the environmental impact. Proposed ideas include using atmospheric balloons at an altitude of 20,000 meters or special aircraft that would continuously disperse sulfates into the stratosphere.

Operating costs are estimated at between $5-10 billion per year. Supporters argue that this could limit global warming below the critical threshold of 1.5 °C, set out in the Paris Agreement.

However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns of unpredictable consequences. Reduced sunlight could alter global precipitation regimes, severely damaging agriculture and food security.

Furthermore, if particle injection begins on a large scale, its sudden cessation – called the “termination shock” – could cause an extremely rapid rise in temperatures, unless CO2 emissions are stopped.

So geoengineering doesn't solve the root cause of the crisis: greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. It doesn't remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which means ocean acidification would continue to worsen, destroying marine ecosystems.

Critics also fear that this technology could give rich countries and oil industries a pretext to delay the ecological transition and continue burning fossil fuels.

Politically, the lack of global governance could ignite conflict. For example, if India acts unilaterally and changes the movement of the monsoon, it could trigger a crisis in neighboring Pakistan, leading to a clash between the two nuclear powers.

The atmosphere has no boundaries and the dispersed substances would move freely over the skies of other countries. Over 100 experts have signed a call for a global moratorium, as there are currently no international bodies capable of managing this technology.

Meanwhile, the prices of solar and wind power are falling sharply, offering a safe and proven path. Many analysts say efforts should be focused on renewables rather than the risky gamble of dimming the Sun's rays.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×