Recent research analyzed "future wildfires burned areas & C emissions under #SolarGeoengineering & Shared Socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) scenarios & assessed how the different geoengineering approaches impact #fires."
Results are discussed in a 🧵 below ⬇️:
1/13
The major conclusions and implications drawn from this study are as follows:
2/13
2️⃣ "By the end of the century, the two #geoengineering scenarios exhibit lower burned area and fire carbon emissions than not only their base-forcing scenario (SSP5-8.5) but also the targeted-forcing scenario (SSP2-4.5)."
4/13
Cont'd....
"The 40–70∘ N latitude band is the only latitude band in which the zonal mean burned area consistently increases under all of the scenarios, even the #geoengineering scenarios."
6/13
4️⃣ "Overall, changes in G6solar & #G6sulfur from SSP5-8.5 with respect to surface temperature, wind speed, and downwelling #SolarFlux at the surface are positively correlated to the changes in burned area and fire carbon emissions,....
7/13
Cont'd....
whereas their changes in precipitation, relative humidity, and soil water content are negatively correlated to the changes in burned area and fire #CarbonEmissions."
8/13
5️⃣ "Generally, the #StratosphericSulfateAerosols approach has a stronger fire-reducing effect than the #SolarIrradianceReduction approach. The impacts of the analyzed variable changes are generally larger (percent-wise) on burned area than fire carbon emissions."
9/13
6️⃣ "#Geoengineering-imposed reductions in surface temperature & wind speed & geoengineering-imposed increases in relative humidity & soil moisture reduce fires by the end of the century."
10/13
Cont'd...
"However, the reduction in precipitation resulting from #geoengineering offsets its overall fire-reducing effect to some extent."
11/13
Read open-access paper entitled: "Impact of solar geoengineering on wildfires in the 21st century in CESM2/WACCM6" here ⬇️ acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/54…
From U.S. withdrawal from global climate bodies & anti-geoengineering bills, to SAI uncertainty tool, Arctic field trials & funding calls, SRM stayed at the nexus of sci & geopolitics.
Top 10 SRM Highlights (Jan'26)🧵1/11
1️⃣ 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗨𝗡𝗙𝗖𝗖𝗖 & 𝗜𝗣𝗖𝗖 - Experts warn withdrawal could weaken SRM governance, deepen geopolitical mistrust, and accelerate fragmented or unilateral approaches.
2/11
2️⃣ 𝗔𝗻𝘁𝗶-𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. - New Arizona and Iowa state proposals target geoengineering, despite limited evidence and no active SRM programs.
🚨Climate pathways to 1.5°C increasingly depend on land-intensive carbon dioxide removal (#CDR) like forestation and BECCS.
But new research shows these climate solutions could place major pressure on #biodiversity if deployed without safeguards.
Details🧵1/11
2/ Using five integrated assessment models, the study examines where large-scale CDR is projected to occur & and how often it overlaps with biodiversity hotspots and climate refugia, the places most critical for species survival.
3/ The analysis focuses on a moderate but realistic deployment level of 6 GtCO₂ per year:
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from forestation
• 3 GtCO₂/yr from BECCS
Even at this level, land pressures are already significant.
🚨The Politics of Geoengineering (book) is out, offering 1st comprehensive social science view of #geoengineering.
It examines political, legal, economic & societal dimensions of CDR & SRM, from Africa to the Asia-Pacific, amid urgent governance & ethical debates
Chapters🧵1/15
2/ Chapter 01: Geoengineering has shifted from theory to contested policy, with technology outpacing governance. The analysis highlights political, legal, economic, and justice dimensions and calls for urgent global oversight.
3/ Chapter 2 examines Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) as geoengineering, analyzing CO2 extraction, storage, and conversion, with SWOT insights on techniques and implications for sustainable climate action.
🚨Is carbon dioxide removal (#CDR) in the Arctic really feasible?
A new peer-reviewed study systematically assessed proposed Arctic CDR pathways and finds that feasibility is far more limited than often assumed.
DETAILS🧵1/14
2/ As Arctic warms rapidly (4x) & attracts attention for climate interventions, can it host CDR at meaningful scale?
To answer this, authors conducted a comparative assessment of major CDR approaches proposed for Arctic regions, spanning both nature-based & engineered methods.
3/ The analysis draws on existing empirical studies, pilot projects, and modeling literature, evaluating each CDR pathway against biophysical constraints, technical readiness, environmental risks, and governance requirements.
🚨2025 Year in Review: Solar Geoengineering Edition🚨
As we enter 2026, we’re excited to share our yearly summary for #SRM: "Solar Geoengineering in 2025: Rays of Hope, Clouds of Doubt."
Here’s what we cover in this comprehensive review:🧵1/11
2/ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐5 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰?
1️⃣ Rising Temp & Escalating Climate Impacts
2️⃣SRM Funding Announcements
3️⃣Top SRM Stories
4️⃣Restrictions & Bans on SRM
5️⃣Essential SRM Reads
6️⃣SRM in Media
7️⃣Research Highlights
8️⃣Our Work Across Geoengineering
3/ 2025 was the third-warmest yr on record. @CopernicusEU shows the last 11 yrs were the warmest ever, with the global average temp in yrs 2023-25 exceeding 1.5 °C. Top climate disasters caused $120B+ in losses, intensifying debates over mitigation, CDR & SRM.