War-Gaming Sun Dimming: Superpowers Chose Rivalry Over Climate
They war-gamed dimming the Sun. It went worse than you think
At Queen Mary University of London, two dozen diplomats, scientists, and military officers simulated UN talks on solar geoengineering, the controversial idea of reflecting sunlight to cool the planet. Across three escalating sessions, the US and China refused any deal limiting their research, disinformation spiraled, and a fake NGO secretly funded by fossil fuel interests discredited the lone climate scientist in the room. No agreement was ever reached. The organizers concluded that strategic competition and state sovereignty, not climate concern, drove the outcome.
I was just so surprised about how little anyone actually cared about the science.
- lucaslazarus
I don’t entirely understand the war-gaming aspect here. Is this just Model UN for adults?
- beloch
"Simulations like this one are not supposed to predict the future. The outcomes depend on the design of the game and the relative personalities and experience of the players. Many of those in the room lacked first-hand diplomatic and national security experience. The UN forum, which organizers selected as the game’s setting, may also not be as effective as talks between smaller groups of major countries."
------------
This paragraph deserves emphasis to balance out the doomer linkbait headline.
The players of this game largely ignored scientific opinions and played politics like it was a fun board-game. Presumably, they did have fun. Notably missing from this wargame was the kind of pressure that real leaders and diplomats would face to swallow their pride, eschew fun, understand the science, and get the solution right. It's just our planet and civilization on the line, right?
It would be deeply foolish to use this wargame to discount or disparage the UN. Under more realistic conditions they could get it right, and they might be our best hope for preventing one or a small number of governments from acting unilaterally and getting it tragically wrong.
- Liftyee
What other options are on the table if we REALLY want to limit warming below the 2 deg C target? It's already 1.5+, and control systems theory says that the inertia of various mechanisms (ocean warming, ice/permafrost melt, ...) will cause a lag between the emissions being produced and the actual warming happening. So even if we immediately switch off all human sources NOW, everything that's already in the air will stay there, and the temperature will keep increasing for some time. Under the assumption that the "residual warming" will overshoot 2 C, aerosols are the only industrially feasible way I know of. Mass production of engineered particles certainly sounds more reasonable than mass producing carbon capture machines in the volumes required.
Of course, we are too busy arguing about how important it is to fully commit to any path.