https://middlebury.figshare.com/articles/thesis/Geoengineering_Planet_Politics_and_the_Price_We_Pay/29577932
*Authors*: Rosella Graham *11 September 2025* *Abstract* As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, climate change is accelerating with devastating consequences—from more intense heatwaves and droughts to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. While mitigation and adaptation efforts remain central to international climate policy, these measures alone may no longer be sufficient to prevent the most severe outcomes. Though widely supported, solutions like fully renewable energy transitions or net-zero emissions by 2050 have minimal downsides, but remain unrealistic in the near term. Which brings me to the purpose of this thesis: to explore the emerging field of geoengineering as an alternative response to global warming, focusing on two primary approaches: Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). Geoengineering offers potential solutions to mitigate these effects without relying solely on energy consumption or behavioral changes but presents some potential drawbacks. CDR, particularly through technologies like Direct Air Capture and Storage (DACCS), aims to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere but faces high costs and scalability challenges. SRM, such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB), seeks to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or allowing infrared radiation to escape but presents complex environmental and geopolitical risks. This thesis examines how the potential benefits and predicted costs of geoengineering shape how countries implement the technologies, focusing on regional differences in the United States (U.S.), India, and the European Union (EU). I analyze how varying resources, technologies, and vulnerabilities shape both implementation and the distribution of risks and benefits. I conclude that while the EU remains committed to precaution and is unlikely to deploy SRM without a global governance framework, it may eventually face internal fragmentation as individual member states pursue their own climate survival strategies. The U.S.’s technological advantage and wealth favor CDR development, but its political polarization and misinformation hinder decisive action, particularly around SRM. India, although deeply vulnerable and cautious due to its weather-dependent agricultural economy, may be compelled to support SRM research or deployment to avoid geopolitical marginalization and protect its population from escalating climate extremes. Ultimately, geoengineering’s future will be shaped less by science than by political will, regional inequities, and the urgency of crisis response—raising the possibility of fragmented, uneven deployment. *Source: Middlebury* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHJsh99wUqutL%2B_50bMrMFiG2BXg4%2BBQ7em2s0iRQqbR4BU6WQ%40mail.gmail.com.
