FAQs

Drawing on insights from systems engineering and climate systems science, climate systems engineering is research-driven development of intentional, large-scale interventions to address climate risks. These interventions – specifically sunlight reflection methods (SRM), carbon dioxide removal​ (CDR)​, and glacial interventions – ​aim to reduce climate change, and they are meant to complement greenhouse gas emissions cuts.​​ ​

​​​No. ​Stopping emissions prevents climate change from getting worse. But repairing the damage, insofar as repair is possible, will require more than emissions cuts. Climate systems engineering explores additional tools to reduce climate risks and prevent harm to people and economies.​​ ​

CSEi is a research effort across academic disciplines to advance scientific understanding of large-scale climate interventions, their potential effects on society, and the public policy and governance questions they raise.

Our goal is to uncover and clarify the potential benefits and risks of these technologies through transparent research and engagement with others in these fields — while educating the next generation of leaders, who will inform how society navigates a warming planet in the years ahead.

There could be. Two of the three tools that CSEi researches – sunlight reflection methods (SRM) and glacial interventions – could produce global economic benefits by reducing damage from climate change. For SRM alone, the cost-to-benefit ratio could be 100-to-1 or better, depending on the scenario. Separately, though open-systems carbon dioxide removal is in the early stages of development, carbon dioxide removal broadly could be more cost effective than some forms of emissions cuts, and over time it could become a significant industry itself.

Sunlight reflection methods (SRM) are techniques designed to reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into ​​space, cooling the planet and reducing climate change. One proposed version of SRM involves dispersing tiny reflective particles of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, recreating the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions and volcanic eruptions at a larger scale. Volcanic eruptions are commonly used as a reference point because the effects of an eruption on the climate is well understood, and it is clear that it results in a cooling of the planet.

These methods are referred to with different terms, such as solar radiation management, solar radiation modification, or solar geoengineering.

​​​SRM can reduce temperature, which is not possible with emissions cuts alone. SRM can also slow rising temperatures faster than could be achieved by plausible emissions cuts. This would lessen the intensity of heatwaves, extreme weather, and disruptions to water availability, providing relief to the communities most at risk from climate change, specifically those in the Global South.​​

​​Potential risks include unintended effects on air pollution and ozone, unequal effects on different regions of the world, and geopolitical tensions over its governance. Our research focuses on ways to better understand these benefits and manage potential risks.

No, SRM is not being deployed. Research is ongoing to understand its potential benefits, risks, and governance challenges before any real-world implementation is considered.

​​No. SRM has been referenced and studied ever since the field of modern climate science emerged in the 1960’s. CSEi’s goal is to continue the research needed to more fully understand SRM’s feasibility, effectiveness, and capacity for deployment. ​

Traditional carbon capture and storage works by capturing CO₂ from power plants and industrial sites, to minimize carbon dioxide emissions from those locations. Carbon removal describes methods for removing CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Open-system​s​ carbon removal methods enhance carbon sinks, or places in the world that already — naturally — absorb carbon dioxide. For example, enhanced rock weathering is a carbon removal technique that stores carbon as stable salt in soils or dissolved salts in the ocean. This technique accelerates the natural process of chemical weathering, where certain minerals found in rocks already react with CO₂ in the atmosphere and lock it away in stable forms. When people go to the beach and see waves crash into rocks by the shore, they are watching part of the process of weathering.

​​​Cutting emissions prevents the problem from getting worse. Carbon removal is the only way to reduce global temperatures in the long term. ​​

​​​The earth is heating up because of the cumulative emissions since the industrial era. As a result, even if emissions stopped completely today, the existing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would cause temperatures to remain elevated for thousands of years. That would cause negative climate impacts – such as rising sea levels – to continue worsening in a warmer world. The only way to reverse that trend is by removing carbon from the atmosphere.​​

Many open-system​s​ approaches, such as enhanced rock weathering and ocean carbon removal, are still in early research stages. They work in theory, but there are unanswered questions in practice. It is possible that they could carry risks like ecosystem disruption and the altering of marine chemistry. Some studies show minimal environmental effects, but more research – controlled field research especially — is needed. Our research focuses on ways to better understand the long-term effectiveness of capturing and storing CO₂ at scale and assessing any of those potential risks.

Key challenges include making carbon removal cost-effective, ensuring that captured CO₂ is stored permanently, and mitigating any potential risks.

​​Glacial intervention is an umbrella term for a range of approaches to slow the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, thereby reducing sea-level rise. These approaches do not address the cause of climate change – instead, they could reduce the damage of sea level rise, one of climate change’s dangerous consequences. ​​​

​​Glacial interventions could include slowing how fast ice moves from land into the ocean by reducing the water under glaciers that helps them slide; blocking warm ocean currents from melting glaciers and ice shelves by building underwater barriers; strengthening natural barriers that hold back ice and icebergs; and using methods to reflect sunlight and cool the planet to prevent glaciers from melting in the first place.​​​​​

The rapid loss of ice from Antarctica and Greenland is a major driver of sea-level rise, which threatens coastal cities, communities, and natural ecosystems — particularly estuaries and marine wetlands — worldwide. Slowing ice loss will help reduce these risks.

Our research will assess potential risks – including disruption to local-polar marine ecosystems, ocean-circulation patterns, and nutrient flows that sustain fisheries and biodiversity. Many proposed techniques are still theoretical or have only been tested at small scales, and their ability to meaningfully slow global sea level rise remains uncertain.

​​​​​No. Researchers are exploring the feasibility and potential risks of different glacial intervention techniques before deployment.

Decisions about climate interventions must involve everyone — governments, scientists, policymakers, and the public. Because these technologies have global implications, strong governance frameworks are important to transparency, accountability, and fairness in decision-making.

Public engagement is critical for exploring all climate solutions. Researchers, including those involved with the CSEi, are working to make climate intervention research more transparent and accessible, and policymakers should create forums for informed debate and decision-making as experts communicate their findings.

​No. CSEi ​as an entity ​does not advocate for or against the deployment of any specific climate engineering methods. CSEi’s role is to advance scientific understanding, assess potential risks and benefits, and explore policy frameworks to inform responsible decision-making. In accordance with the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report, CSEi supports vigorous public policy debate but does not to advocate for any particular policy.​ At the same time, consistent with the Kalven Report, CSEi supports individual researchers’ rights to advocate for or against specific interventions or policies.