After years of effort, Harvard researchers have scrapped plans to test a controversial theory that cools the Earth by emitting sunlight-reflecting particles into the atmosphere. Now, members of an independent advisory committee that addresses ethics and safety issues are sharing what they learned from the ill-fated scheme.
Policy analysis published in magazines science Friday stressed the importance of talking to people on the ground before launching experiments, especially ones with potentially planet-changing consequences. The paper echoes recent calls for policies to prevent any unintended side effects.
Until recently, the idea of reflecting sunlight back into space to combat global warming—a process known as solar geoengineering—seemed firmly rooted in science fiction. But as the climate crisis worsens, the idea has begun to move from the fringes of academic research to sparking more serious debate.
“Public participation is necessary”
Some researchers and their Silicon Valley backers want to put this theory to the test. Time is running out to develop rules for how to conduct these experiments responsibly, which could help determine whether solar geoengineering is doing more harm than good.
“One of the core messages that emerges from this is that even if you don’t think the impact of an experiment will be felt immediately in a real, concrete way, public engagement is necessary. This issue has a long tail and, for many people, a much larger profound meaning. science Professor of Policy Analysis and Environmental Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Harvard University researchers launched a project called SCoPEx (short for Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment) as early as 2017. The first ever outdoor experiment. It releases some of these aerosols into the stratosphere through a balloon, then guides the balloon back through the plume to take measurements. The goal is to observe how particles interact with each other and other elements in that environment, thereby producing data that can be used to make more accurate computer models.
That never happened. Sweden was originally scheduled to conduct an engineering test flight in 2021 that would not release any particulate matter, but it was canceled due to strong opposition from local indigenous leaders. An important argument is that the researchers did not initially contact the Sami Council, an organization representing the Sami indigenous people in the region. According to policy analysis, members of the SCoPEx advisory committee did not agree on whether to consult with the Sami people because the test flights would not release anything into the atmosphere. Most ultimately decided that test flights could go ahead if there weren’t any major environmental issues to flag.
Regardless, the Sami Council learned of the plans and wrote a strongly worded letter to the advisory committee asking the researchers to cancel the flight. They said it was “remarkable” that the test flights were carried out without consulting the Sami people or other local stakeholders, given the controversy surrounding solar geoengineering. Local environmental advocates including Greenpeace and the Swedish chapter of Friends of the Earth also signed the letter.
Many activists still believe solar geoengineering is the “wrong solution” to combating climate change. Injecting particles into the atmosphere attempts to recreate the way volcanic eruptions temporarily cool the Earth by releasing sulfur dioxide. But sulfur dioxide could also cause acid rain, exacerbate the Antarctic ozone hole, or have other unforeseen consequences. There are also concerns that solar geoengineering could undercut efforts to transition to clean energy or cause dangerous swings in global temperatures if implemented and halted suddenly.
“We noticed [solar geoengineering using reflective particles] “This technology carries the risk of catastrophic consequences…There is therefore no acceptable reason to allow the SCoPEx project to proceed in Sweden or elsewhere,” the Sami Council said in the letter.
After receiving this letter, the advisory committee ultimately recommended that the test flights in Sweden be cancelled. By 2023, Harvard told the advisory committee it had “paused” the program, then canceled it entirely in March. The plan “faces both intense media attention and how to respond to calls from the Scientific Advisory Board to engage broadly and formally with the public.” nature Reports at the time quoted one of its project leaders as saying.
“I am grateful for the insights of the SCoPEx Advisory Committee. Their thoughtful analysis is valuable to the scientific community because it considers important issues of governance. edge in an email. He did not elaborate on why the project ended.
Effective oversight of the progress of geoengineering research will require more than an ad hoc committee, according to a newly released policy analysis. “The time is ripe for the government to start discussing and studying governance coordination,” the report said.
These negotiations have already begun at the European Commission and the United Nations Environment Assembly, although they have not yet resulted in any concrete new policies. Large-scale geoengineering has been suspended since the 2010 United Nations Conference on Biodiversity, but does not include small-scale scientific research.
Lately, little unreliable measures have become a bigger problem. Last year, the founders of a geoengineering startup grilled biocides in a California parking lot to create sulfur dioxide gas, which they then attempted to launch into the atmosphere via weather balloons. Similar balloon launches have previously been carried out in Mexico, prompting the country’s government to ban solar geoengineering experiments. The policy analysis called the startup’s efforts “irresponsible” and “irrelevant to any legitimate scientific pursuit.”
Since then, there have been calls for either rules to regulate future experiments or a halt to solar geoengineering altogether. But without broader policies in place, keeping up with new geoengineering efforts can be a bit like playing whack-a-mole around the world.
These policies also ensure that nearby communities have a say in projects that may affect them. As we learned through SCoPEx, even if you try harder, you can skip this step to your own detriment.
