After years of preliminary work, Harvard researchers scrapped plans to test a controversial theory for cooling the planet by sending sunlight-reflecting particles into the atmosphere. Now, members of an independent advisory committee tasked with addressing ethical and safety questions are sharing what they learned from the ill-fated project.
TO policy analysis published in the magazine Science Friday highlights the importance of talking to people on the ground before launching an experiment, especially one linked to planet-altering consequences. The article echoes recent calls Arrive Policies in place to protect against any unwanted side effects.
Until very recently, the idea of reflecting sunlight back into space to combat global warming – a process called solar geoengineering – seemed firmly rooted in science fiction. But as the climate crisis worsens, the idea has begun to emerge from the fringes of academic research into more serious debate.
“Public participation is necessary”
Some researchers and their Silicon Valley backers want to test the theory, but time is running out to establish rules for how to design such experiments responsibly, which could help determine whether solar geoengineering will do more harm than good.
“One of the main messages that emerges from this is that public participation is necessary even when the impact of the experiment is not expected to be felt in a real, concrete, real-time way. This issue has a long history and a very deep meaning for many people,” says Sikina Jinnah, lead author of the study. Science Policy analyst and professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
Harvard researchers launched the project called Scope of application —short for Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment—in 2017. To better understand the potential risks or benefits associated with solar geoengineering, he planned to conduct the first outdoor experiment using reflective particles. He would have released some of those aerosols into the stratosphere via a balloon and then piloted the balloon back through the plume to take measurements. The goal was to observe how the particles interact with each other and with other elements in that environment, resulting in data that could be used to make more accurate computer models.
That never happened. An engineering test flight without particle release was supposed to take place in Sweden in 2021, but that didn't happen. Scrapped after facing strong opposition from local indigenous leaders. A major point of contention was that the researchers initially did not communicate with the stock advicerepresenting indigenous Saami peoples’ organisations in the region. SCoPEx advisory committee members could not agree on whether to consult with the Saami, as the test flight was not going to release anything into the atmosphere, according to the policy analysis. The majority ended up deciding that the test flight could go ahead if there were no significant environmental concerns to be raised.
He stock advice I found out about the plans anyway and wrote a strong message. letter The letter was sent to the advisory committee to demand that the researchers cancel the flight. They said it was “remarkable” that the test flight was carried out without consulting the Saami people or other local stakeholders, given the controversies surrounding solar geoengineering. Local environmental campaigners, including the Swedish chapters of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, also signed the letter.
Solar geoengineering is still considered a “false solution” to climate change by many activists. The injection of particles into the atmosphere attempts to recreate the way erupting volcanoes can cool temporarily The planet by releasing sulfur dioxideBut sulfur dioxide could also cause acid rain, worsen the Antarctic ozone hole or have other unintended consequences. There are also fears that solar geoengineering could divert attention from clean energy transition efforts or cause a dangerous shift in global temperatures if it is ever implemented and then abruptly stopped.
“We note that (solar geoengineering using reflective particles) is a technology that carries risks of catastrophic consequences… Therefore, there are no acceptable reasons to allow the SCoPEx project to be carried out either in Sweden or anywhere else,” the Saami Council letter says.
The advisory committee ultimately recommended canceling the test flight in Sweden after receiving that letter. In 2023, Harvard had told the advisory committee that it had “suspended” the project and then He cancelled it completely in March this year. The project “struggled both with the intense media attention and with how to respond to calls from the scientific advisory committee to engage broadly and formally with the public.” Nature reported at the time, quoting one of his project leaders.
“I am grateful for the insights of the SCoPEx Advisory Committee. Their thoughtful analysis is valuable to the scientific community as it considers important governance issues,” says Frank Keutsch, who was the principal investigator of SCoPEx. The edge In an email, he did not elaborate on why the project was terminated.
According to the recently published policy analysis, more than an ad hoc committee will be needed to effectively oversee the progress of geoengineering research. “The time has come for governments to start discussing the coordination of research governance,” it says.
Such discussions have already begun in the European Commission and the United Nations Environment Assembly, but have not yet resulted in any new concrete policy. moratorium on large-scale geoengineering since the 2010 United Nations biodiversity conference, but excludes small-scale scientific research.
And small, fleeting initiatives have become an increasing concern lately. Last year, the founders of a geoengineering startup grilled fungicide in a California parking lot to produce sulfur dioxide gas that they then tried to release into the atmosphere by weather balloonsThis followed a similar balloon launch in Mexico that He pushed the government The goal of the initiative is to prevent solar geoengineering experiments. The policy analysis calls the startup’s efforts “irresponsible” and “not linked to any legitimate scientific activity.”
Since then, there have been calls for rules to regulate future experiments or for solar geoengineering to be halted altogether. But without broader policies, keeping up with new geoengineering efforts is becoming something of a game of whack-a-mole around the world.
Such policies could also ensure that nearby communities have a say in projects that could affect them. And, as we’ve learned with SCoPEx, even the most studious efforts can skip that step to their own detriment.
