Shutterstock/John D. Sahlin
Addressing climate change is a fundamentally collective effort. We share a single planet and atmosphere, meaning every emission of greenhouse gases impacts us all.
Notably, a small percentage of individuals have a disproportionate impact. The wealthiest 1% globally account for one-fifth of total emissions since 1990. A voluntary reduction in carbon footprints by the affluent could yield significant global benefits.
However, given our understanding of human behavior, such an outcome seems unlikely. But what if the affluent sought to balance carbon outputs through financing geoengineering projects designed to cool the planet? As explored in an exclusive survey of climate scientists (see “Exclusive: Climate scientists expect attempts to dim the sun by 2100”), there are unpredictable risks associated with such initiatives, potentially leading to adverse effects like droughts or ozone depletion.
Thus, if we are to engage in atmospheric modification, it must be pursued collectively. At present, there are no barriers preventing individuals or factions from attempting to unilaterally cool the Earth. This is why over 80% of respondents in our survey advocate for a global treaty to regulate potential climate interventions.
“
The wealthiest 1% globally account for one-fifth of total emissions.
“
Such a treaty would be among the many necessary updates to global governance in our era. Another domain where affluent individuals can exert significant influence is the night sky, which is increasingly cluttered with satellites that negatively affect the atmosphere (see How worried should we be about toxic chemicals from dead satellites?). With no global restrictions on satellite launches, the number has surged into the thousands, primarily driven by Elon Musk’s Starlink initiative.
International agreements lack the allure of dramatic, high-tech solutions often envisioned in science fiction, making it challenging to win support from billionaires. However, if they wish to contribute positively, endorsing international law would be a constructive starting point.
Source: www.newscientist.com
