The sticky study of sunblocking a warming planet
But that modest research plan was just the tip of the iceberg.
According to new reporting from my colleague Corbin Hiar, the scientists planned a much larger test over a swath of ocean the size of Puerto Rico. They kept it secret from the public so as not to raise alarm bells.
But some solar geoengineering experts say such secrecy can breed public distrust in an emerging science that should be studied as the world continues to burn the fossil fuels driving climate change.
'Maybe you're able to do research quietly now in these early stages, but eventually people will find out about it, and they will be angrier when they find out that they have been kept in the dark,' Shuchi Talati, the founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, told Power Switch.
The secrecy also breeds disinformation, said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who argues the discipline needs more public education and transparency.
'We don't want to have a potential tool in our toolbox excluded from consideration because people misunderstand what it is,' she said.
What is solar geoengineering?
Solar geoengineering encompasses various hypothetical technologies that aim to block the sun's rays to cool the planet.
The two most studied strategies are releasing sulfate particles into the earth's atmosphere or spraying saltwater aerosols over the ocean.
Some say the process would disrupt the weather, with ripple effects on people, farms and wildlife. Others warn of heat spikes if effective strategies allow the planet to continue to burn fossil fuels — and then suddenly stop working or shut down.
Hundreds of scientists have even called for a ban on the science's development.
Solar geoengineering also fits neatly into long-standing internet conspiracy theories about the government releasing chemicals from airplanes to control the climate and for mass mind control.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has falsely blamed the deadly Texas flooding on July 4 on solar engineering and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a law last month targeting solar geoengineering that bans the release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.'
What happens now?
The public fallout from some projects highlights the need for transparency, Talati said.
The research is likely going to continue regardless, she said. But if public discussions shut down, that research may be done by private companies, or even militaries, outside the public eye.
Jinnah stressed that solar geoengineering is not the primary tool for responding to climate change — and researching it doesn't mean such technology will ultimately be implemented.
But as countries fail to make significant progress in reducing fossil fuel consumption, this emerging science could help communities that face the consequences of global warming, both Jinnah and Talati said.
'The reason a lot of people work on solar geoengineering is that it might have the potential to limit human suffering,' Talati said.
It's Monday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Heather Richards. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to hrichards@eenews.net.
Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Ben Lefebvre breaks down the Trump administration's recent oil lease sale in New Mexico's Permian Basin.
Power Centers
Imminent climate rule rollbackThe Trump administration plans to release a proposal on Tuesday to overturn the scientific finding that underpins the Environmental Protection Agency's climate rules, writes Jean Chemnick and Zack Colman.
The draft revision to the so-called endangerment finding is part of the Trump administration's efforts to weaken the government's authority to curtail carbon emissions. It will be paired with a proposal to roll back rules that limit climate pollution from cars and trucks.
Two people granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions told Jean and Zack that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin would make the announcement while visiting an Indiana facility with links to the truck manufacturing supply chain. The transportation sector is the largest source of planet-heating gases in the U.S.
At odds over permitting A bipartisan bill that would reform a landmark environmental statute to speed federal permitting drew fire from a top Democrat, Kelsey Brugger writes.
The bill from Reps. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine), introduced last week, would narrow the scope of federal actions that trigger review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
California Rep. Jared Huffman, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, said the bill would 'shield polluters from scrutiny' and 'bury the climate risks of massive fossil fuel projects.'
Two pipelines, one pathTwo companies are proposing to build natural gas pipelines along roughly the same route, setting up a fight over their necessity and cost, Carlos Anchondo and Mike Soraghan write.
The proposals from Williams Cos. and Mountain Valley Pipeline would follow an existing Williams pipeline, and both companies say they are needed because of growing electricity demand. But Williams says its project would be enough to handle the gas volume planned for both pipelines.
'It seems as though Transco is attempting to undercut MVP Southgate,' said Ian Heming, a natural gas analyst at East Daley Analytics.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is set to release analyses of both proposals this fall. It could approve both projects.
In Other News
Renewables flourish: Texas' power grid and competitive market have allowed wind and solar to grow and gain support in the state.
New nuclear player: A Canadian nuclear reactor maker is looking to expand its business into the U.S. to get in on skyrocketing electricity demand.
Subscriber Zone
A showcase of some of our best subscriber content.
EPA has barred an engineer from its drinking water advisory council after she signed a letter criticizing Administrator Lee Zeldin's policies.
Two Democrats are calling on the government's watchdog to issue a legal decision on the fiscal 2025 spending for the Energy Department.
EPA plans to use a regulatory maneuver to suspend Biden-era requirements for oil and gas operations to limit their methane emissions.
That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
3 days ago
- New York Post
CBS host warns Trump admin plans for moon base could usher in new age of space colonialism
CBS News host Vladimir Duthiers questioned the Trump administration's plan to establish a base on the moon and drew parallels to Earth's history of colonialism. On 'CBS Mornings Plus' on Wednesday, Duthiers and co-host Adriana Diaz discussed the White House calling for more human space exploration and administration plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon to precede an eventual U.S. lunar base with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Advertisement Diaz asked if it was 'inevitable that we're going to have to go to the moon and try to colonize the Moon?' Tyson said that the United States is being 'reactive' in a race to the moon with China, and stated, to the laughter of the panel, that he does not want to 'live on the moon.' But Duthiers questioned if colonizing the moon was a good idea. 'We know how the age of colonialism worked on this planet,' the host said. 'Should we be trying to colonize and saying that there's a keep-out zone that no other countries can participate in having?' Advertisement Tyson replied by pointing out that it would be difficult to colonize an area that does not have people. 3 Duthiers questioned if it was a good idea to colonize the moon. CBS 3 United States astronaut Buzz Aldrin salutes the American flag on the surface of the Moon after he and fellow astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first men to land on the Moon during the Apollo 11 space mission July 20, 1969. REUTERS 'Well, the — the real problem with the colonization history in Western civilization is that there were people already there,' Tyson said. Advertisement Duthiers and Diaz agreed, and Tyson added that 'there are no moon beings that were displaced as far as we know.' Tyson later criticized administration plans to decrease funding to NASA. 3 Tyson said that the moon would be difficult to colonize because no one lives there. CBS 'What's not on brand is to cut science programs, not only in NASA, but across the board, and then say, we want to excel in this one spot,' Tyson said. Advertisement 'Well, in the 1960s, science was a major investment profile of the United States,' he continued. 'And by the way, it's not on brand even for Republicans, because Republican administrations since the Second World War have had a higher annual increase, average annual increase, in the science budget than even the Democrats.' 'So Trump's decision to cut science is not on brand for even being a Republican,' Tyson added.
Scientific American
3 days ago
- Scientific American
The Law That Saved the Whales Is Under Attack
A landmark law passed more than 50 years ago to protect whales, dolphins and other marine mammals in U.S. waters could be upended by amendments proposed on July 22 during a legislative hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries. Republican representative Nicholas Begich of Alaska proposed changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) that some scientists say would eviscerate it. For instance, the amendments would roll back current definitions of harm or disturbance to marine mammals while also requiring 'impossibly high hurdles for conservation action,' according to a fact sheet from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations that was issued earlier in July. These hurdles include a much higher burden of proof to justify even simple conservation actions. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed in 1972 with bipartisan support and was implemented following 150 years of industrial whaling, where some whale populations had fallen to 5 percent or less of their historical estimates. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Since its passing, not a single marine mammal species in U.S. waters has gone extinct, even as use of the ocean has increased. The act has overseen astonishing recoveries of species such as humpback whales—according to a 2006 study, North Pacific humpback whale abundance was estimated at 21,063 individuals, recovered from what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates could have been only a few thousand individuals in the 1970s. 'Some of the most compelling conservation success stories in recent history' have the MMPA to thank, says Lauren Eckert, a postdoctoral fellow researching conservation science at the University of British Columbia. Some marine mammals have yet to fully recover, and in these cases, the act plays a crucial role as the last line of defense against extinction. Take the North Atlantic right whale; if even one of these critically endangered animals is lost, 'that could be the difference between them being here 100 years from now and them being gone,' says John Hildebrand, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who studies sound used by marine mammals. 'Without the MMPA, these groups would have very little chance of going forward,' he says. 'With the MMPA, they've got a fighting chance.' These mammals are vital to not only ocean ecosystems but also economies; according to a 2020 study from NOAA, Alaska's whale watching industry brings in more than $100 million annually. The amendments hamstring scientific processes that have proven successful for decades, experts say. They would require scientists to obtain 'systematic and complete abundance survey data,' or exact accountings of animal numbers, to establish any limit on marine mammal loss. 'It is disturbing because systematic, long-term surveys of these populations are already extremely difficult and are going to become more so,' Eckert says. Further, the draft downgrades requirements to sustain healthy populations of marine mammals to a 'minimum survivability of populations.' Instead of necessitating sustainable, genetically diverse populations, it would require a much lower bar for the number of individuals in the wild. Scientists contacted by Scientific American are also concerned about the proposed changes to how protections are granted; under these amendments, the U.S. would only recognize protections for marine mammals where there has been a direct effect rather than including the indirect effects that are currently in the MMPA. 'The deaths of marine mammals that aren't directly observed and documented are excluded from any takes [animal capture allowances] or regulatory action,' Eckert says. Although military sonar or offshore drilling can have profound consequences for marine mammals, it would become near impossible to regulate these activities in the name of protecting animals, she adds. The amendments would also undermine the process known as 'take reduction planning,' which protects marine mammals that are accidentally caught or entangled in fishing gear, called 'incidental take,' by eliminating a key safeguard that limits marine mammal deaths. This is especially dangerous for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale, for which entanglements are a primary threat. The draft amendments contradict Republican rhetoric about protecting ocean life. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have actively blocked offshore wind projects that follow environmental regulations, claiming they endanger whales (ship strikes and net entanglements are greater dangers). Additionally, this draft is taking shape in tandem with another extreme proposal that would repeal much of the Endangered Species Act, which has historically worked harmoniously with the MMPA. In the coming months, the stakeholders pushing this draft could decide to drop it, resolve certain aspects or move it forward as is. If the bill is passed, it would move through the standard legislative process, possibly even making it to the Senate floor for a vote. Regardless of what happens, 'this is an extreme bill. This is essentially a rewrite of the entire Marine Mammal Protection Act,' says Jane Davenport, an attorney at the conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife, one of the groups that issued the July fact sheet. 'The overall thrust is going to essentially put a stake through the heart of the statute.' Many of the animals that would lose protection from changes to the MMPA are already vulnerable to climate change, says Jeff Boehm, former executive director of the Marine Mammal Center. 'They're an embodiment of so much about the oceans,' he says, 'and a more serious assault on how this nation manages and conserves marine mammals, I can't imagine.' It's Time to Stand Up for Science Before you close the page, we need to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and we think right now is the most critical moment in that two-century history. We're not asking for charity. If you to Scientific American, you can help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both future and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself often goes unrecognized.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Dark Mirror of Our Own Universe Could Explain Quirks in Gravity
Since conventional explanations have failed to pony up dark matter, one physicist is looking towards the unconventional. In a series of two papers, physicist Stefano Profumo of the University of California, Santa Cruz has proposed two strange, but not impossible, origins for the mystery material responsible for the excess gravitational effects we see out there in the Universe. In the first, published in May 2025, he proposes that dark matter could have been born in a dark matter 'mirror' of our own Universe, where matter is made of dark versions of particles akin to our protons and neutrons. In the other, published in early July, Profumo proposes that dark matter particles could have formed at the boundary of the cosmic horizon – the edge of the observable Universe – during the rapid expansion following the Big Bang. Related: Entire Planets Made of Dark Matter May Exist. Here's How We Can Find Them. "Both mechanisms are highly speculative," he says, "but they offer self-contained and calculable scenarios that don't rely on conventional particle dark matter models, which are increasingly under pressure from null experimental results." Dark matter is one of the most vexing problems in the cosmos. It neither emits nor blocks radiation, which means we have no way of detecting it directly. With few clues to go on, we don't know what it is; we only know of its existence because somehow, the effects of gravity throughout the Universe are far stronger than they should be, once you've accounted for every galaxy, every star, and every cloud of dust drifting silent and dark between the stars. Dark matter is the placeholder name we give to whatever it is that's responsible for this gravity excess, and there's a range of theoretical candidates to explain it, from planet-sized blobs to fleeting particles. However, in spite of avid and dedicated searches, none of the candidates have been verified. For his new explorations of alternative dark matter candidates, Profumo turned to different realms of physics. For the first, he turned to quantum chromodynamics, which describes the strong force that binds quarks and gluons into particles like protons and neutrons. According to this theory, a sort of 'mirror' universe exists within ours, where the strong force is replaced by a variation that binds fundamental particles hidden from our own Standard Model. Under certain conditions in the early Universe, Profumo's paper expounds, concentrations of these hidden particles could grow dense enough to form dark matter black holes that would interact with our visible Universe only through gravity. For the second paper, Profumo invokes quantum field theory at the cosmic horizon, sort of like a universe-scale version of the black hole's event horizon – the 'edge' of our observable Universe that we will never be able to probe beyond. Following the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion according to current cosmological theory. During this time, quantum fluctuations at the cosmic horizon could have spontaneously generated dark matter particles with a range of masses. Both explanations are new and unconventional, but solidly based in current theory, and should be testable with future experiments. Further work is needed to refine the newly proposed models, but, Profumo says, they open up new possibilities for exploring and understanding the dark matter that suffuses the Universe. Both studies have been published in Physical Review D. They can be found here and here. Related News Project Reveals Mindblowing Designs For Shipping Humans to The Stars Cosmic Rays Could Help Aliens Thrive in The Barren Wastelands of Space Something Massive Could Still Be Hiding in The Shadows of Our Solar System Solve the daily Crossword
