Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

Researchers studying the potential consequences of dispersing tiny particles into the upper atmosphere, where they would reflect incoming solar radiation and offset global warming, have come up with a way to avoid producing ill effects in some regions, such as drought.

Why it matters: Solar geoengineering, which would involve dispersing sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, is viewed as a possible way to offset some of the global warming that would result from doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to preindustrial levels. However, concerns have been raised about its potential to unintentionally harm particular countries or regions.

The new study, published Monday in Nature Climate Change, finds that this futuristic fix is neither the panacea that some advocates portray it to be nor is it an option that would automatically cause significant harm to some parts of the globe.

What they did: For the new study, researchers at Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Georgia Tech used computer models to project how climate change would play out if solar geoengineering were used to cut in half the global warming from a simulated doubling of CO2. They looked at differences in regional precipitation and shifts in extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, between a world with and without solar geoengineering.

What they found: Contrary to earlier studies that focused on solar geoengineering schemes that would aim to cancel out all human-caused global warming, the new study found that halving the amount of warming would not have widespread, significant negative impacts on temperature, water availability, the intensity of hurricanes or extreme precipitation.

  • Trying to offset all the warming, on the other hand, could cause significant harm to some regions, previous studies have shown.

But, but, but: There are many "ifs" in this study, from the possible flaws in climate models to assumptions about how solar geoengineering would be conducted. Therefore, the results should be taken with some caution.

  • This study does move the geoengineering conversation forward, however, by showing the benefits from solar geoengineering used as a complement to emissions cuts rather than a substitute for them.

What they're saying: "This suggests solar geoengineering could have large and equally distributed benefits, but it doesn't prove it. It's an idealized model," study co-author David Keith tells Axios. "There are still huge uncertainties. And also it's clear that if misused, solar geoengineering could have huge damages."

Keith cautioned against seeing geoengineering as a way to avoid human-caused global warming.

"If people are thinking this is a get out of jail free card, a technological fix it means we don’t need to cut emissions, then they are mistaken. Or to be harsher: delusional."

Gernot Wagner, a research associate in environmental science and engineering who works with Keith but did not co-author this study, tells Axios that the work shows that geoengineering could be done in such a way that the positive effects significantly outweigh the negative side effects.

"Many who look at solar geoengineering for the first time consider it too good to be true. This study shows that there really is a broad consensus among climate models that its effects, when done sensibly, are net positive. The emphasis, of course, needs to be on 'when done sensibly.' None of this means that solar geoengineering is a good idea. The governance challenges are vast."

The big picture: Geoengineering is viewed by many as controversial, since it would involve deliberate human intervention with the climate, with potentially unforeseen consequences, in order to combat human-caused global warming. At a UN Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi this week, officials are trying to grapple with some of the governmental implications of researching and deploying geoengineering technologies.

Why you'll hear about this again: With the world on track for more than 2°C, or 3.6°F, of global warming this century relative to preindustrial levels, policy makers may turn to geoengineering as a way of damping warming, and therefore reducing the severity of its impacts.

Go deeper

Caitlin Owens, author of Vitals
42 mins ago - Health

Who benefits from Biden's move to reopen ACA enrollment

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Nearly 15 million Americans who are currently uninsured are eligible for coverage on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and more than half of them would qualify for subsidies, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation brief.

Why it matters: President Biden is expected to announce today that he'll be reopening the marketplaces for a special enrollment period from Feb. 15 to May 15, but getting a significant number of people to sign up for coverage will likely require targeted outreach.

2 hours ago - Technology

Big Tech bolts politics

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

Big Tech fed politics. Then it bled politics. Now it wants to be dead to politics. 

Why it matters: The social platforms that profited massively on politics and free speech suddenly want a way out — or at least a way to hide until the heat cools. 

Felix Salmon, author of Capital
2 hours ago - Economy & Business

GameStop as a metaphor

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

A half-forgotten and unprofitable videogame retailer is, bizarrely and incredibly, on the lips of the nation. That's because the GameStop story touches on economic and cultural forces that affect everyone, whether they own a single share of stock or not.

Why it matters: In most Wall Street fights, the broader public doesn't have a rooting interest. This one — where a group of small traders won a multi-billion-dollar bet against giant hedge funds by buying stock in GameStop — is different.

You’ve caught up. Now what?

Sign up for Mike Allen’s daily Axios AM and PM newsletters to get smarter, faster on the news that matters.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!