Covert Solar Engineering: Potential Hazards and Risks in Hidden Solar Interventions
In the realm of solar geoengineering, a potential solution to combat climate change, transparency and public awareness are paramount. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is leading the charge in the United States, promoting openness through new online resources dedicated to solar geoengineering and contrails [1][3][5].
The EPA's initiatives include publishing detailed explanations of the science behind solar geoengineering, addressing associated environmental and health risks, such as ozone depletion, crop damage, altered weather patterns, and acid rain [1][5]. By acknowledging public skepticism and concerns straightforwardly, the EPA fosters trust through direct communication rather than dismissing worries as conspiracy theories [1][3].
The EPA also tracks and openly reports on private actors engaged in solar geoengineering activities, as exemplified by its review of the firm Make Sunsets’ operations and sulfur dioxide emissions [3]. The EPA has stated that Make Sunsets' releases were "extraordinarily low", but it is considering regulatory actions if activities scale up significantly.
Moreover, the EPA provides tools to dispel misinformation about geoengineering and contrails, such as debunking "chemtrails" conspiracy theories that claim deliberate release of harmful chemicals for nefarious purposes [1][5].
Beyond the EPA, organisations like the Deliberative Society for Geoengineering (DSG) are connecting research to policy-making, aiming to support informed decisions in vulnerable regions and fostering justice and public involvement in geoengineering governance [4]. Some states, like Florida, have enacted legal bans on geoengineering and weather modification activities, reflecting ongoing public and governmental debate over regulation and oversight [5].
Experts, including Shuchi Talati, founder and executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, believe that there will be a larger backlash if research is not open and publicly accessible [6]. Conversely, David Keith of the University of Chicago believes that the small experiments proposed now are considered safe by experts [2]. However, David Kitchen, an expert on climate change at the University of Richmond, states that some researchers might be hesitant to share their research with the public due to negative pushback [2].
Recent events have highlighted the need for more stringent regulations. For instance, the University of Washington researchers sprayed sea salt aerosols in San Francisco Bay without informing people in the area beforehand [7]. Additionally, a one-page form with the Commerce Department is currently the only requirement for a company or citizen to inject particles into the air, which is in line with a law developed in the 1970s [8].
In response to these gaps, researchers and experts, including Talati, recently petitioned the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to update its regulations to "expand and clarify" how they apply to private solar geoengineering activities [9]. The petition calls for private entities to submit the information required to fully assess the risks, which is currently lacking [9].
Meanwhile, another group has proposed a non-use agreement to halt solar geoengineering, which has been signed by 500 researchers [10]. The Tennessee House of Representatives recently passed a bill banning "chemtrails", further underscoring the public's concern and interest in this matter [11].
One startup, Make Sunsets, has launched aerosols from a camper van and sells "cooling credits" with little scientific guidance, public engagement, or governmental approval [12]. This highlights the potential for unregulated activities in the solar geoengineering field.
In summary, the U.S. approach to regulating transparency around solar geoengineering involves proactive online disclosure of scientific and regulatory information, public engagement addressing fears and misinformation, and monitoring private geoengineering activities, combined with ongoing policy deliberations and state-level actions aimed at ensuring openness and public awareness [1][3][4][5].
- Transparency and public awareness are key factors in the initiative of solar geoengineering to combat climate change.
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is leading efforts for openness in the US, providing online resources dedicated to solar geoengineering and contrails.
- The EPA openly discusses the science behind solar geoengineering, addressing environmental and health risks alike.
- By communicating directly and acknowledging public concerns, the EPA fosters trust and avoids dismissing worries as conspiracy theories.
- The EPA monitors and openly reports on private actors engaged in solar geoengineering activities, such as Make Sunsets' operations and sulfur dioxide emissions.
- Beyond the EPA, organizations like the Deliberative Society for Geoengineering (DSG) support informed decisions in regions impacted by solar geoengineering.
- Florida is one of the states that has imposed legal bans on geoengineering and weather modification activities, reflecting ongoing public and governmental debate.
- There is division among experts on the sharing of research with the public, with some warning of potential backlash if research is not open and accessible.
- Recent unregulated events, like the University of Washington researchers' aerosol spraying without informing the public, have highlighted the need for stricter regulations in solar geoengineering.
- As a response, researchers have recently petitioned the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to update its regulations and require private entities to fully assess risks.
- Solar geoengineering activities, such as those of Make Sunsets, might occur with little scientific guidance, public engagement, or governmental approval, demonstrating the need for regulation and public awareness in the solar geoengineering field.
