UK Fear of Sun Dimming as a Weapon: A Sceptical Perspective, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
Recent reports in the UK media, notably from The Telegraph and The Daily Sceptic, have raised alarms about the potential weaponisation of solar geoengineering technologies, specifically solar radiation modification (SRM). These concerns suggest that "hostile nations such as Russia" or other third-party actors could misuse these technologies to orchestrate environmental disasters, plunging Britain into a "cold and dark future" reminiscent of dystopian science fiction like The Matrix. I will outline the UK's fears, the science and politics behind solar geoengineering, and the sceptical critique of these claims.
Solar geoengineering, particularly SRM, involves techniques to reflect sunlight away from Earth to mitigate global warming. Methods include:
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI): Spraying reflective particles, such as sulphur dioxide, into the stratosphere to mimic volcanic cooling effects.
Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB): Using seawater sprays to enhance cloud reflectivity, reducing surface temperatures.
The UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) has allocated £56.8 million for SRM research, including small-scale outdoor experiments, to assess its potential as a climate intervention tool. These efforts aim to buy time for decarbonization by temporarily cooling the planet, particularly to avoid climate tipping points like the supposed collapse of ocean currents or ice sheets. However, Aria emphasises that these experiments are controlled, reversible, and avoid toxic substances, with public consultation promised before any trials.
The Telegraph reports that UK ministers, led by Climate Minister Kerry McCarthy, are preparing for scenarios where "independent or third-party actors" could deploy SRM to harm Britain. These actors might include:
Countries pursuing drastic carbon reduction unilaterally.
Hostile nations, such as Russia, using SRM as a form of hybrid warfare to disrupt agriculture, solar energy, or weather patterns.
Matt Ince of Dragonfly Intelligence highlights SRM's appeal for hostile states due to its affordability, feasibility, and plausible deniability. He suggests Russia, known for hybrid warfare tactics like influencing migration patterns, could orchestrate an environmental disaster, such as reduced sunlight affecting crop yields or solar power. Historical precedents, like volcanic eruptions reducing sunlight and impacting agriculture, lend credence to fears about disrupted photosynthesis and food security.
The Daily Sceptic challenges the plausibility of these fears, likening them to "daft sci-fi plots' like The Matrix, where humanity "scorched the sky" to combat machines. The outlet argues that sceptics, typically critical of government overreach, abandon their scepticism when faced with apocalyptic narratives about sun dimming. Key points of contention include:
Logistical Implausibility: SRM particles disperse rapidly due to atmospheric winds, making targeted attacks on specific regions like the UK unlikely. Emissions released over Britain would likely affect distant areas, such as Moscow, rather than the Midlands.
Governance and Intent: Critics argue that the scale of SRM required for significant impact would be impossible to conceal, undermining claims of covert attacks. Experts like Jim Franke assert that large-scale weather modification cannot be conducted secretly due to the visible infrastructure needed.
Moral Hazard: Sceptics and scientists, including Raymond Pierrehumbert and Michael Mann, warn that SRM distracts from emissions reduction, likening it to "treating cancer with aspirin." They fear that even small-scale trials could lead to a slippery slope toward large-scale deployment without adequate governance.
The Daily Sceptic also questions the government's motives, suggesting that climate change mitigation might be a pretext for control or fearmongering, drawing parallels to Baudrillard's concept of "hyperreality," where mediated narratives obscure reality.
Public sentiment, as gauged by YouGov, shows scepticism toward SRM, with only 16% supporting SAI and 31% backing MCB, compared to 92% favouring natural solutions like afforestation. Fears of unintended consequences, such as altered rainfall patterns or "termination shock" (rapid warming if SRM stops abruptly), fuel opposition. Social media posts on X amplify these concerns, with some users alleging secret "chemtrail" programs or mass medication.
Scientists like Alan Robock highlight governance challenges, noting the lack of international agreements to regulate SRM. Past experiments, such as Harvard's SCoPEx, were cancelled due to public backlash, and Mexico banned a US startup's SRM activities, underscoring global unease.
The UK's fear of SRM weaponisation aligns with broader concerns about hybrid warfare, where non-traditional tactics like cyberattacks or migration manipulation destabilise adversaries. However, SRM's global atmospheric effects make it a blunt tool compared to precise cyber operations. Critics argue that the focus on hypothetical threats diverts attention from immediate climate action, echoing Greenpeace's warning that SRM could be a "smokescreen" for fossil fuel interests.
The UK's fear of sun dimming as a weapon reflects a mix of legitimate concern and speculative alarmism. While SRM's potential for misuse exists, its logistical and governance challenges make targeted attacks unlikely, as sceptics note. The debate highlights a tension between climate innovation and the risks of unintended consequences, with public scepticism and scientific caution urging a critical eye on techno-fixes, under climate change mania.
According to the Telegraph, the Government is now taking seriously the possibility that Britain's ever-growing list of mortal enemies might be considering denying our island the sunlight given to us by God himself. "Third-party actors could include countries taking drastic action to lower their carbon emissions," explains the newspaper. Or worse, experts warn that latter-day Bond villains and "hostile nations such as Russia" might be planning to use "solar geoengineering to orchestrate an environmental disaster against their enemies." Climate change mitigation, then, could be a pretext for interventions that destroy our food and plunge us into a cold and dark future. That being the same premise as the humans' strike against the machines in The Matrix is not this story's only resonance with daft sci-fi plots.
"We don't know who struck first – us or them," Morpheus tells Neo in the Desert of the Real. "But we know that it was us that scorched the sky." This was humanity's strike against the machine world, which (having no need for agriculture) depended on solar power. The "Desert of the Real" is French postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard's description of a society in which reality (the "real") is obscured by simulation – a state of "hyperreality", thus inspiring the Wachowski brothers' (now sisters) plot. Baudrillard's hypothesis has leant itself to critiques of war, the violent reality (the "real") from which most of the populations of Western nations have been protected, their understanding mediated by TV screens and the agendas of TV executives and their masters in turn."
Comments