The Financial Times has admitted that the spraying of chemtrails is NOT a conspiracy theory as mainstream media outlets have been pretending for years – but it’s a real phenomena that’s helps to counter so-called ‘global boiling.’

In a new article published on Monday titled ‘Geoengineering is worth the risk — provided we regulate it properly’, the Financial Times argues that artificially lowering the temperature of earth via geoengineering will help avert a future disaster caused by climate change.

Ft.com reports: If all global pledges and commitments to climate action are satisfied, we are going to experience an increase of 2.4 to 2.6C by the end of the century. This is much lower than the 4C increase without climate action, but also much higher than the intended 1.5C of the Paris Agreement.

Worse, overshooting this objective looks imminent, as the world reached an annual average temperature of 1.45°C above pre-industrial levels last year. Rapid emissions reductions, stronger adaptation efforts, and increased carbon dioxide removal remain crucial for limiting the worst impacts of global warming. But with risks already high and rising alarmingly, we cannot afford to ignore any existing methods. That includes controversial ones such as geoengineering — specifically, solar radiation modification (SRM), which involves reflecting a small portion of sunlight back into space to cool the planet. During the past few months, SRM has been gaining traction in scientific circles, international media and among diverse climate stakeholders.

SRM is highly experimental and not without climate, health and ethical risks. It includes techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection that would involve releasing tiny particles into the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight, mimicking the cooling effects seen after large volcanic eruptions, or marine cloud brightening in which seawater would be sprayed into the air to increase the reflectivity of low-lying clouds. These methods could potentially reduce global temperatures quickly and inexpensively. They could also have serious harmful consequences and disrupt regional weather patterns, harm the ozone layer and lead to acid rain.

A significant concern is that SRM does not address the underlying problem of greenhouse gas emissions. While SRM could temporarily cool the planet, it would not reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere or ever fully restore the climate to its pre-industrial state. Additionally, SRM could create a “termination shock” scenario, where a sudden halt in SRM activities would lead to rapid and potentially dangerous warming. The risk of countries or private entities deploying SRM adds to these concerns.

While SRM is controversial, therefore, our collective failure to limit global warming to 1.5°C leaves us with little choice other than to explore it, and carefully assess whether it can bring any benefit, and if we can realistically moderate all of its risks. 

For this gamble to work, some firm principles are required. SRM should not be regarded as a replacement for cutting emissions and should only be considered after thorough research and careful governance. 

First, this could come only through a global governance framework to manage SRM. Currently, there is no binding international framework to regulate SRM research or deployment. This increases the risk of premature or ill-considered use of these technologies. Second, a moratorium on SRM deployment and large-scale experiments until sufficient scientific understanding and governance structures are in place should be implemented by every country. Third, expanded research on SRM is required, with a focus on transparency (including in resourcing) and global participation, involving developing countries.

Next year’s UN Environment Assembly-7 and COP30 offer the right opportunities for decision-making on the complex risks and benefits of SRM. Over a year away, there is enough time for broad consultations involving governments, international organisations, civil society, and other stakeholders, to handle SRM with the utmost care, responsibility and co-operation. This is not about taking shortcuts in climate action, and SRM should only be a last resort. But dismissing possible responses to the current global warming emergency would be grossly negligent.