Dimming the Sun: A Bold Fix or a Dangerous Distraction?
Within weeks, the UK government is expected to greenlight outdoor experiments designed to dim sunlight, part of a growing effort to explore geoengineering as a way to combat climate change.
Among the proposed methods
Brightening clouds to reflect solar radiation.
Injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions.
Modifying cirrus clouds to allow more heat to escape into space.
The initiative, led by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), is backed by £50 million in funding. Proponents argue that it’s time to move from theory to real-world testing especially as emissions remain stubbornly high and global temperatures continue to climb.
But before we start rewriting the sky, it’s worth asking: What are we really signing up for?
Are We Treating the Symptom, Not the Cause?
Let’s be clear, climate change is real, urgent, and deeply complex. But is dimming the sun the equivalent of putting a wet towel on a fever while ignoring the infection?
Solar geoengineering doesn’t reduce emissions. It doesn’t address ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, or systemic overconsumption. If anything, could it give high-emitting industries an excuse to delay deeper transformation?
And if emissions continue unchecked, how long would we need to keep the planet artificially cooled?
What Happens If We Stop?
There’s another risk: Termination shock.
If we start large-scale solar dimming and then stop abruptly due to political shifts, funding cuts, or unintended consequences, the climate could rebound rapidly, with devastating effects.
Are we prepared for that kind of planetary whiplash?
What If It Works Too Well?
Consider this: Brightening clouds might cool one region but disrupt rainfall in another. Aerosol injection could alter monsoon cycles, impacting agriculture and water supplies in vulnerable areas.
Who decides what level of sunlight is “optimal”? Whose climate do we prioritize?
What if one nation benefits while another suffers?
These aren’t just technical questions - they’re geopolitical ones. And history tells us that planetary-scale interventions rarely come without power struggles.
Is This a Slippery Slope?
ARIA stresses that the experiments will be “small, safe, and reversible.” And they may well be. But outdoor tests tend to set precedents. Once real-world experiments begin, momentum can build fast.
Do we have global governance in place to oversee this?
Who regulates the sky?
And what happens if non-state actors or rival governments pursue their own experiments?
Following our implementation of the air tax, you egregiously pledged to reduce breathing! [Le avventure di Cipollino / The Adventures of Cipollino]
Can Public Trust Keep Up?
Climate policy already struggles with public trust. How will people respond to the idea of governments -- already seen by some as distant or opaque, managing the brightness of the sun?
Early research shows that public attitudes toward geoengineering are mixed at best. Many support more research, but far fewer endorse real-world deployment.
As the science moves forward, are we investing enough in public dialogue, not just technical safety?
What’s the Endgame?
At best, solar geoengineering might buy us time. But without meaningful cuts in fossil fuel use, land degradation, and unsustainable consumption, it’s hard to see how sunlight dimming solves the problem at its root.
Maybe the question isn’t “Can we do this?”
But rather, “What kind of future are we building if we have to?”
The sky may be our new laboratory. But let’s not forget -- unlike computer models, there’s no ‘Undo’ button on the atmosphere.
