Informative risk analyses of radiative forcing geoengineering require proper counterfactuals

This critique of the study by Müller et al. examines the implications of radiative forcing geoengineering on Arctic wildfires and permafrost thaw. The authors argue that while Müller et al. assert that geoengineering increases these risks, their findings actually indicate a reduction in risk compared to high-emission scenarios (RCP8.5), albeit less effectively than targeted emissions reductions (RCP4.5). Key concerns include the inappropriate baseline comparison used in the study, which mischaracterizes the effectiveness of geoengineering interventions, and the limited scope of geoengineering strategies considered, potentially leading to overgeneralizations. The critique emphasizes the necessity for accurate framing and communication of geoengineering's potential impacts to avoid misinterpretation and to inform climate response strategies effectively.