Passive daytime radiative cooling is referred to as more stable, adaptable, and reversible when compared to stratospheric aerosol injection, which proposes injecting particles into the atmosphere to increase radiative forcing to reduce temperatures. Studies have warned against stratospheric aerosol injections potential to contribute to further ozone loss and heat the Earths lower stratosphere further, stating that the injection of sulfate particles "would reflect more of the incoming solar radiation back into space, but it would also capture more of the outgoing thermal radiation back to the Earth" and therefore accelerate warming.
Wang et al. states that stratospheric aerosol injection "might cause potentially dangerous threats to the Earth’s basic climate operations" that may not be reversible, and thus put forth a preference for passive radiative cooling. Munday noted that although "unexpected effects will likely occur" with the global implementation of PDRC, that "these structures can be removed immediately if needed, unlike methods that involve dispersing particulate matter into the atmosphere, which can last for decades."
When compared to the reflective surfaces approach of increasing the reflectivity or albedo of surfaces, such as through painting roofs white, or the space mirror proposals of "deploying giant reflective surfaces in space," Munday states that "the increased reflectivity likely falls short of what is needed and comes at a high financial cost." PDRC differs from the reflective surfaces approach by "increasing the radiative heat emission from the Earth rather than merely decreasing its solar absorption."