Geoengineering: The World’s Biggest Insurance Policy Against Climate Change or Its Riskiest Bet?

Geoengineering refers to deliberate, large-scale interventions in the Earth’s climate system. The proposals vary widely but fall into two broad categories. 

The first is solar radiation management. This involves reflecting a portion of sunlight away from the planet to cool global temperatures. The most studied concept is releasing fine particles into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. Other ideas include brightening marine clouds or even deploying giant reflectors in space. 

The second category is carbon dioxide removal. These are approaches that aim to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. They range from direct air capture machines to large-scale reforestation and ocean fertilisation. 

Both approaches are still experimental. Some could deliver results quickly. Others would take decades. All come with profound uncertainty. 

Supporters describe geoengineering as a necessary contingency. They argue that even if emissions are reduced, the carbon already in the atmosphere will continue driving warming for decades. Geoengineering, they suggest, could provide a way to buy time. 

Solar radiation management could, in theory, reduce global temperatures within a few years. Carbon removal could eventually deal with legacy emissions that are otherwise unavoidable. 

For advocates, geoengineering is not a substitute for decarbonisation. It is a backup plan for a world that is failing to meet its targets. 

The same features that make geoengineering appealing also make it deeply risky. Climate systems are complex and interconnected. Altering one part of the system could trigger unintended consequences elsewhere. 

History provides a glimpse of this. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it released millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Global temperatures dropped by around half a degree Celsius for more than a year. It was a striking example of how the planet can be cooled quickly. 

But the eruption also disrupted rainfall patterns. Some regions experienced drought, others faced unexpected shifts in weather. Pinatubo became a reminder that interventions at this scale are not neat solutions. They carry ripple effects that are difficult to foresee. 

Scientists warn of other risks too. If solar radiation management were started and then stopped suddenly, global temperatures could rebound rapidly causing severe disruption. The existence of geoengineering technologies could also create a moral hazard, encouraging governments or industries to delay the challenging work of cutting emissions. 

Even if the technologies could be made to work, another challenge looms: governance. 

Climate impacts do not respect borders. A program launched in one country could change rainfall in another. The question of who decides whether geoengineering should be deployed is politically charged. 

Would the United Nations be responsible for regulating it? Could the G20 or another coalition of powerful nations control the thermostat of the Earth? What happens if one country moves ahead unilaterally? 

The politics of geoengineering may prove more difficult to resolve than the science. 

Imagine the year is 2035, temperatures have risen nearly two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Heat waves are claiming thousands of lives each summer. Crops are failing, food prices are volatile and coastal defences are under strain. 

A coalition of countries announces that it will begin releasing aerosols into the stratosphere. Within months, skies appear hazier and global temperatures begin to cool. But rainfall in South Asia declines, crops wither and millions face food insecurity. 

Who bears responsibility for these outcomes? Who decides if the program continues? How would disputes be resolved? 

This thought experiment underscores the reality that geoengineering is not just a scientific proposition. It is a political act with consequences that extend across generations. 

Geoengineering is often described as the world’s biggest insurance policy against climate change. Like insurance, it is designed to manage risk when prevention falls short. 

But the comparison is imperfect. Insurance works by calculating probabilities and setting premiums based on predictable outcomes. Geoengineering sits in the realm of the unknown. The “premium” may be paid in altered rainfall or disrupted ecosystems. The “payout” may be uneven, with some regions benefiting and others suffering. There is no opt-out clause for those who are affected. 

The metaphor of insurance captures the paradox. Geoengineering reflects humanity’s desire to manage uncertainty. Yet it reminds us that some risks cannot be fully priced, predicted or transferred. 

Geoengineering is both a symbol of human ingenuity and a reminder of human hubris. It may one day be considered a safeguard against climate collapse, or it may be remembered as a reckless gamble. 

The question is not only whether geoengineering could work, it is whether humanity should risk trying it. And if we do, who gets to decide, who bears the risks and who gains the benefits. 

Seen through the lens of insurance, geoengineering is less about certainty and more about resilience. It forces us to confront how we weigh risk, how we prepare for the unthinkable and how we choose to protect the generations that will follow. 

_{DISCLAIMER: This information is provided to assist you in understanding the risks, implications, and common considerations for your industry.  It does not constitute advice and is not complete. Please contact Knightcorp Insurance Brokers for further information.} 

_{For advice specific to your insurance needs, please contact your Knightcorp Insurance Brokers directly.}