Part 1: The Rise of Climate Engineering: Should We Manipulate the Weather?

The growing field of climate engineering raises risks and ethical questions surrounding technologies designed to counteract climate change by alteringEarth's weather systems. Due to the complexity of this issue, it will be split into two parts: part one, written by Simon Belda, arguing the positives of Climate Engineering, and part two, written by F.B. Brookings, arguing the negatives of Climate Engineering.

As a part of this debate, the issue of whether climate change is real is not being considered.

---

Climate Engineering is one possible solution to climate change. It has potential for large-scale intervention in Earth’s natural systems to counteract the effects of climate change, often through methods such as carbon dioxide removal, solar radiation management, or ecosystem-based approaches. The limited real-world use of geoengineering, primarily cloud seeding, has worked amazingly. In other words, climate engineering is the scientific practice of changing the environment to reduce the impacts of global warming and make the planet more sustainable for future generations. Despite the immense climate stress our Earth is under, climate engineering has the potential to undo climate change. These methods include "solar radiation management, which reflects sunlight to reduce warming, and carbon dioxide removal through advanced capture technologies, to name a few," says the Union of Concerned Scientists (Kriz-Flickr 2020; Felgenhauer and Pizer 2024). While geoengineering may offer a potential emergency brake on climate change, it raises great ethical and governance concerns. The urgency of the climate crisis necessitates a serious consideration of geoengineering as part of a broader response. "The damage humans have inflicted on the Earth cannot be undone by preventive measures alone," says Scott with the Sustainability Directory, going on to say, "delaying potentially life-saving action in pursuit of certainty may itself be morally irresponsible."

A graph of the past and current natural resource use

Despite the risks of geoengineering’s potential unintentional consequences, the damage humans have caused to the Earth needs to be stopped and reversed. If the science is already here and we spend too long ensuring there are no unintended consequences, there may not be anything to save.

Current Denver efforts to seed clouds, a weather modification technique that involves introducing substances into clouds to increase the chance of rain or snow.

Many argue that deploying such technologies could be a hazard to many, Solar engineering has a large chance of creating large-scale atmospheric “perturbations,” or changes, in the layer of air that protects our planet from the sun has the potential to disrupt global weather systems and ecosystems, creating unpredictable side effects that no nation could fully control (Kriz-Flickr 2020; Poynting 2025). Such disruptions could disproportionately affect vulnerable regions, worsening droughts or floods and deepening existing inequalities (Wibaux and O’Hagan 2023). As well as the "inability to control global climatic outcomes," says Wibaux and O’Hagan. Furthermore, the moral hazard argument warns that reliance on geoengineering could diminish public and political motivation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, allowing unsustainable behaviors to continue because we “have a solution” (Corner and Pidgeon 2014). Without strong international governance, there is also danger of political misuse—where powerful states or corporations could monopolize geoengineering technologies or weaponize control over global climate systems (Vignuda 2024; Felgenhauer and Pizer 2024).

A more in-depth look at cloud seeding

The absence of enforceable regulatory frameworks amplifies these risks, as unintended consequences could become irreversible once deployed at a planetary scale (Scott 2014). Consequently, experts argue that investment should prioritize proven, sustainable solutions, such as renewable energy and carbon reduction, which address the root causes rather than the symptoms of the climate crisis (Sustainability Directory, 2025). Until governance, equity, and long-term safety are established, geoengineering remains a perilous distraction from meaningful climate action.

Although climate engineering has the potential, through its connection with local water, air, and soil systems, to cause harm, the benefits far outweigh the risks of doing nothing. Even with renewable energy, the world stands on the edge of an environmental breaking point. Forests burn, ice sheets crumble, and oceans warm faster than anyone imagined. Corner and Pidgeon found that people worry about these technologies making us complacent. But right now, doing nothing feels far riskier. When the planet falls toward irreversible collapse, tools that can cool the atmosphere or slow warming are not jokes or far-off science; they are humanity’s emergency brakes. Felgenhauer and Pizer (2024) remind us that "advancing solar geoengineering research isn’t about replacing climate action—it’s about keeping our chances alive while we race to cut emissions." Geoengineering carries both promise and peril. The idea that we could reflect sunlight away from Earth or pull carbon directly out of the sky is both astonishing and humbling. Kriz-Flickr (2020) explains how solar radiation management might quickly cool the planet, helping to halt dangerous feedbacks like melting permafrost. Small experiments have already shown glimmers of success, offering hope that science can still intervene before nature’s runaway effects take hold. Yet, as Poynting (2025) warns, unregulated efforts could harm fragile ecosystems, from the Arctic tundra to coral seas. That’s why every test must be handled with transparency and global cooperation. No one nation can gamble with the planet’s thermostat. The moral weight of these decisions is immense. Scott (2014) and Vignuda (2024) argue that choosing inaction, when action could spare millions of lives, is itself unethical. Reports by UNESCO (Wibaux and O’Hagan 2023) and the Sustainability Directory (2025) urge that any path forward must be guided by shared moral responsibility, not power or profit. Geoengineering is not salvation—it’s a stopgap measure, fragile but vital, a chance to hold the line while we reclaim balance with the Earth that sustains us.

The cloud brightening technique uses sea salt to bounce light away from the Earth

Among the most common forms of geoengineering are solar radiation management, carbon dioxide removal, ocean fertilization, cloud brightening, and Arctic ice restoration. Solar radiation management techniques, such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, have been studied as a potential means to lower global temperatures. According to Kriz-Flickr (2020) and Felgenhauer and Pizer (2024), solar radiation management could mimic the cooling effect observed after large volcanic eruptions. The side effects, like altered rainfall patterns and ozone depletion, pose ethical and ecological challenges. This technique has the most potential to actually help the climate, although it also comes with many risks. Carbon dioxide removal encompasses several methods, including direct air capture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, also known as BECCS, and reforestation--which we should be doing more of anyway-- all designed to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

A Bio Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage, also known as a BECCS system

These techniques generally have fewer immediate climatic risks than solar radiation management but require vast land or energy resources, raising concerns about biodiversity and food security, as discussed by Wibaux and O’Hagan (2023), so they would need better government oversight to function properly. Ocean fertilization involves adding nutrients such as iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth, which captures carbon dioxide as the organisms photosynthesize. However, Corner and Pidgeon showed that such "interventions have above average potential to disrupt marine ecosystems, which frequently cause oxygen depletion and harmful algal blooms." Cloud brightening seeks to enhance the reflectivity of marine clouds by spraying fine sea-salt particles into the atmosphere, cooling the planet modestly. Poynting (2025) reports that while this method could slow Arctic melting, the sensitivity of polar weather systems makes unintended consequences likely, although it is poorly studied. Arctic ice restoration, another innovative approach, aims to physically thicken or refreeze sea ice using reflective materials and pumped seawater to preserve the polar albedo, also known as the light reflected by the ice caps. Yet, scientists caution that artificial manipulation at such scales risks disturbing local habitats and ocean currents (Poynting, 2025). Cloud brightening and restoring the ice caps have the same effect on the climate. It increases the amount of light and heat that is reflected out into space as opposed to heating the planet further. As science shows, if done with the proper care, all of these methods could be used to help keep our planet's ecosystems intact.

A graph of different countries' contributions to carbon emissions

Rising temperatures and worsening climate disasters demand decisive global action that blows past traditional mitigation and prevention alone. While reducing emissions remains very important, the ever-heightened pace of Climate change demonstrates that mitigation is insufficient without additional intervention. Geoengineering, as, should serve as a complement, not a substitute, for emission reduction, functioning as a temporary tool to buy time for long-term sustainability. However, as emphasized, uncoordinated or premature deployment could lead to dangerous outcomes such as atmospheric disruptions or geopolitical conflict. Our duty is to act before climate thresholds render recovery impossible. The true hazard lies not in action but in waiting for action. If undertaken with integrity and cooperation, geoengineering can become a prudent bridge toward planetary stabilization, reflecting both our capacity for scientific innovation and our ethical obligation to safeguard the common future of life on Earth. So please, petition your local government, force them to create and continue better sustainability efforts. If we don't, the snow on our mountains is at risk, and the local wildlife is at risk.

Read the next article here! https://www.poudrepress.com/

---

Bibliography

Corner, Adam, and Nick Pidgeon. 2014. “Geoengineering, climate change skepticism

and the ‘moral hazard’ argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions.” National Library of Medicine. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0063.

Felgenhauer, Tyler, and William Pizer. 2024. “The Future of Solar Geoengineering

Research.” Resources for the Future. https://www.resources.org/common-resources/the-future-of-solar-geoengineering-research/?_gl=1*1y5g53t*_ga*OTY0NzYyMDIxLjE3NjA2NDEwNjg.*_ga_HNHQWYFDLZ*czE3NjA2NDEwNjkkbzEkZzEkdDE3NjA2NDE0NDQkajE2JGwwJGgw.

Kriz-Flickr, Jonathan. 2020. “What is Solar Geoengineering?” Union of Concerned

Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/resources/what-solar-geoengineering.

Poynting, Mark. 2025. “Protect Arctic from 'dangerous' climate engineering, scientists

warn.” BBC, September 9, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yqw996q1ko.

Scott, Dane. 2014. “Geoengineering and Environmental Ethics.” Scitable.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/geoengineering-and-environmental-ethics-80061230/.

Sustainability Directory. 2025. “What Are the Ethics of Climate Engineering?”

Sustainability Directory. https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-ethics-of-climate-engineering/.

Vignuda, Daniele. 2024. “Climate geoengineering needs ethics.” Materia Rinnovabile.

https://www.renewablematter.eu/en/climate-geoengineering-needs-ethics.

Wibaux, François, and Clare O'Hagan. 2023. “Report of the World Commission on the

Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) on the ethics of climate engineering.” UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000386677.