Photograph by by Ryan Molnar / Connected Archives
WORDS BY SIMON SPICHAK
Is there a secret cabal of elites spraying chemicals into the air?
Tennessee Republicans seem to think so. The state’s House of Representatives recently passed a bill banning “chemtrails”—what conspiracy theorists believe are chemicals being sprayed into the atmosphere by airplanes for population control, mind control, or other nefarious purposes. And although chemtrails aren’t real, the fear of aerosols being sprayed into the atmosphere certainly is. It exists outside of conspiracy circles. In fact, you can find it front and center in the world of climate action.
In the past several years, a few researchers have run small-scale experiments to release aerosols, reflect sunlight, and cool the Earth—a controversial method called solar geoengineering.
Some scientists have warned that solar geoengineering could be risky and detracts from efforts to decarbonize. Others insist that it will be necessary and have forged on with preliminary experiments, sometimes in secret. In the private sector, one startup has even gone rogue, launching aerosols from a camper van and selling “cooling credits” with little scientific guidance, public engagement, or governmental approval.
“We’re going to see a much larger backlash down the road if we do things in a way that is not open and publicly accessible,” said Shuchi Talati, founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering.
In April, researchers from the University of Washington sprayed sea salt aerosols from the deck of an old aircraft carrier in San Francisco Bay. This small experiment tested whether these particles could brighten clouds, causing them to reflect more sunlight, ultimately leading to cooling. The experimenters didn’t inform people in the area beforehand—its launch was kept under wraps to prevent public backlash. But testing has since been paused by the City of Alameda, pending public hearings, according to Alameda Neighborhood News.
The researchers said that they saw no issue with the experiment because it was picked up by the media after the fact. “No studies were undertaken out of public view,” Sarah Doherty, the director of the marine cloud brightening program, insisted in an email.
“I don’t think anything they were doing was malicious in any way,” Talati said of the experiment. “Oftentimes physical scientists might also underestimate the politics and the dynamics of social perception.” Talati added that even when research projects don’t involve community engagement, they still undergo rigorous risk assessments through an institutional ethics review.
David Kitchen, an expert on climate change at the University of Richmond, said that some researchers might also be hesitant to share their research with the public. The pushback can be so negative that even “quite reasonable small-scale experiments” might not go through.
“We’re going to see a much larger backlash down the road if we do things in a way that is not open and publicly accessible.”
Though they may garner controversy, these small experiments are also considered safe by experts. “I personally don’t see a lot of environmental risks at the experiments that are proposed now,” said David Keith of the University of Chicago.
Keith was the lead investigator on a solar geoengineering experiment called SCoPEx, which proposed launching a weather balloon holding one kilogram of calcium carbonate particles into the air. Talati was part of the project’s Independent Advisory Committee, which developed transparency requirements, including identifying financial conflicts of interest and publicly releasing a scientific merit review. SCoPEx’s launch was ultimately canceled in 2021, partly due to pushback from the Indigenous Sámi people of Sweden.
In an effort from the private sector last year, the U.S. company Make Sunsets launched two weather balloons that injected sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The startup, working out of a camper van, flew the balloons over Mexico but didn’t ask for permission. Afterward, Mexican politicians said the launch violated its sovereignty and enacted a law banning solar geoengineering. The company has continued launching balloons in the U.S., with 64 launches under its belt with little hubbub or fanfare.
As part of its mission of “democratizing access to Cooling Earth,” Make Sunsets also sells DIY kits. “We’re not accepting gatekeepers, and we don’t expect you to either,” the company wrote in a recent newsletter.
“The notion that they think they understand the consequences of that is astounding to me,” Talati said of Make Sunsets. On the other hand, Keith called these launches “a stunt” and doesn’t think they pose any significant risks.
Indeed, the risks of geoengineering remain murky. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is currently conducting congressionally mandated research into them. In the meantime, some researchers are advocating for regulatory action to prevent the worst-case scenarios.
Researchers and experts, including Talati, recently petitioned NOAA to update its regulations to “expand and clarify” how they apply to private solar geoengineering activities.
Right now, a company or citizen simply needs to fill out a one-page form with the Commerce Department 10 days before injecting particles into the air, which is in line with a law developed in the 1970s. According to the petition, private entities don’t need to submit the information required to fully assess the risks. Talati called it “completely insufficient.”
“Traditional environmental advocates… have mostly been concerned that this will distract from emissions cuts, and they’ve made the choice not to advocate strongly for this research.”
Other national regulations might kick in the case of larger-scale solar geoengineering projects. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would require the federal government to solicit public input and assess the environmental impacts of any federally funded efforts. At the same time, the Clean Air Act could regulate aerosols injected into the air as potential pollutants. With NEPA on the books, Keith doesn’t think there’s a need for any new regulations.
There’s just as much disagreement on whether solar geoengineering should be on the table in the first place.
Last year, more than 100 scientists published a letter calling for a “responsible research” given the likelihood of blowing past 2°Celsius of warming, relative to preindustrial temperatures. Another group has proposed a non-use agreement, which has been signed by 500 researchers, to halt solar geoengineering. In addition to the risks, they add that “speculative hopes” of solar geoengineering emboldens lobbyists, climate denialists, and governments to delay decarbonization.
“I’m in favor of a much bigger, more systematic research program,” Keith said, adding that there is currently a lack of funding for these experiments. “Traditional environmental advocates, whose job it is to advocate for environmental protection, have mostly been concerned that this will distract from emissions cuts, and they’ve made the choice not to advocate strongly for this research.”
Talati added that environmental advocates are also opposing the fossil fuel industry’s involvement in solar geoengineering, which may be used to justify continued fossil fuel use. “I haven’t seen that yet,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.”
Policy experts also worry that the large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering could spark geopolitical conflict. For example, one country might spray an aerosol into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight in the aftermath of a severe heat wave or other climate disaster, which could have undesirable impacts on other countries.
To address this gap, representatives from Switzerland proposed a resolution at February’s United Nations Environmental Assembly to set up an expert group to “examine risks and opportunities” of solar geoengineering. The resolution was rejected by Botswana, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Gabon, and Somalia, arguing that solar geoengineering distracts from “real climate solutions.”
Nonetheless, Talati thinks that solar geoengineering “could have the potential to limit a lot of human suffering” if it’s done collaboratively and transparently.
“We’re already in a time where trust in science and trust in government institutions is at an all-time low,” she said. “If we continue to see private institutions, universities and potentially even government’s doing this in secret, we’re going to have a lot of problems with misinformation, with trust, and with legitimacy.”
Join our membership community. Support our work, receive a complimentary subscription to Atmos Magazine, and more.
Shady Science: The Dangers of Secret Solar Geoengineering
