Unlike traditional environmental issues where nations can "free ride" by not participating, solar geoengineering allows any single actor to unilaterally increase the cooling effect. However, no single actor can unilaterally reduce it, creating a dangerous governance lock-in where the world may be forced to accept the level desired by the most aggressive nation.
Related Insights
Stratospheric aerosol injection doesn't remove CO2; it only masks its warming effects, requiring constant replenishment. If the program is stopped for any reason (e.g., political instability), decades of suppressed warming would be unleashed rapidly. This creates a perpetual technological commitment with immense risk.
Tech billionaire Bill Gates supports a radical concept called solar radiation management: releasing aerosols to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. This moves the idea of a "sun visor for Earth" from science fiction to a seriously considered, albeit controversial, last-resort solution for climate tipping points.
Having AIs that provide perfect advice doesn't guarantee good outcomes. Humanity is susceptible to coordination problems, where everyone can see a bad outcome approaching but is collectively unable to prevent it. Aligned AIs can warn us, but they cannot force cooperation on a global scale.
The belief that AI development is unstoppable ignores history. Global treaties successfully limited nuclear proliferation, phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, and banned blinding lasers. These precedents prove that coordinated international action can steer powerful technologies away from the worst outcomes.
The race to build AGI, framed with "religious zealotry," puts hyperscalers in a prisoner's dilemma where none can slow down. This narrative justifies abandoning prior 'net zero by 2030' commitments in favor of immediate, power-intensive buildouts using fossil fuels, under the belief that the eventual 'machine God' will solve the resulting climate problems.
Setting rigid global warming limits (e.g., 2°C) creates a finite carbon budget. Since most future emissions will come from developing countries, these caps effectively tell poorer nations they must cut projected emissions by up to 90%, forcing them to choose between development and global climate goals.
Even when world leaders agree on climate action, their commitments are fragile. As administrations change, countries frequently reverse course (e.g., the U.S. and the Paris Agreement), destroying the confidence needed for sustained global effort.
Unlike AI or nuclear power, mirror life offers minimal foreseeable benefits but poses catastrophic risks. This lack of a strong commercial or economic driver makes it politically easier to build a global consensus for a moratorium or ban, as there are few powerful interests advocating for its development.
The political challenge of climate action has fundamentally changed. Renewables like solar and wind are no longer expensive sacrifices but the cheapest energy sources available. This aligns short-term economic incentives with long-term environmental goals, making the transition politically and financially viable.
For existential crises like climate change, the typical market model of secretive, competing scientists guarding IP is inefficient. A collaborative 'Manhattan Project' approach that gathers top minds to work collectively is a far better model for solving such large-scale public goods problems.