August 6, 2025

Jawadul Islam 

10th Grade

Queens High School of the Sciences at York College

Global warming continues to prove itself as a serious problem, even rapidly growing in severity in recent years. Scientists and officials continue to form ideas, research options, and propose new “solutions” for this crisis. Over the last few years, one of these proposals has been the concept of geoengineering. Many have never heard of the idea, nor even think that it's possible, but there are, in fact, many ways believed to be capable of revolutionary change. 

Geoengineering as a whole is artificially manipulating a part of Earth’s climate system, most commonly its atmosphere. Most commonly, examples of geoengineering fall under two categories: CDR (carbon dioxide removal) and SRM (solar radiation modification). CDR includes various methods, from directly compressing CO2 from the atmosphere into liquid form to utilizing the carbon-absorbing properties of many plant species. In addition, SRM involves injecting spraying aerosols, tiny particles, into the stratosphere, where their main job is to reflect as much sunlight as possible. Another method, though less developed, is injecting salt particles into clouds, making them brighter, in turn reflecting more sunlight. 

The concept of geoengineering was proposed as early as the early 1950s; a large-scale use of this concept remains hypothetical. There are many benefits that could come from putting such an innovation into practice, but such outcomes remain speculative. Supporters claim that geoengineering is our only chance at stopping environmental damage quickly enough, before it becomes irreversible, though does that compensate for its risks? 

Despite the intensive research already done, scientists believe that accurate data can’t be reached without a large-scale simulation, and if done, there is no going back. Even if the experiment goes well, the resulting use of this technology could prove disastrous. 

The power that comes from this concept raises ethical concerns among officials. What if it causes more harm than good? What will happen to the animals and societies that have adapted to the changing climate, changing themselves or their lifestyle? Will actively reversing the change they adapted to not harm them? And what if it is not controllable? What if there really is a mistake, a problem, a "disaster" if you will? What if we can stop it? Due to this risk, officials say that instead of adding power into the hands of humanity, enabling drastic changes in small amounts of time, we should focus on more long-term changes, such as lowering carbon emissions, and implementing sustainable and renewable energy production on a large scale. Not to mention that even if everything goes smoothly, many believe that such control over the environment, over such a big part of nature, is simply not right. 

Moreover, the amount of responsibility that this type of technology would be handled with depends heavily on the global state and international relationships. After implementation, it wouldn’t be long before its use shifts from preservation to destruction. Countries could easily alter the environment of other nations, simply making them unlivable. There are countless routes of geoengineering becoming a weapon, each more deadly than the last. Not to mention the difficulty of deciding who is in charge of such power. Geoengineering is capable of many ethical and political conflicts, but truly, how much do these risks overpower the rewards?

      As mentioned before, geoengineering is used as something of a “last resort,” stopping problems associated with climate change before it’s too late. Focusing mainly on habitats, geoengineering would aid in refreezing the Arctic, restoring a home to many species, and cooling down coral reefs threatened by marine heat waves, in other words, saving not only a habitat but a mini-ecosystem. While there are many other methods for dealing with climate change, it is hard to tell if they can develop fast enough, before we lose too much. So, a “quick fix” or even a temporary change, such as geoengineering, seems like a saving grace. 

Despite all of this, this concept has much more to be explored. In this article, we explore much of the surface, but this is far too little to form a valid decision. Geoengineering has more than a handful of risks and cons connected to it, but its benefits are also undeniable. There is much more to research, experiment, and analyze. This ambiguity might seem like a con in itself, but it really means that scaling the pros and cons side by side doesn’t provide the full picture. So for now, all we can do is keep an open eye for new data and, well, just stay curious.