Latest news with #CorbinHiar
Politico
28-07-2025
- Science
- Politico
The sticky study of sunblocking a warming planet
A plan to artificially create clouds over a small town in the San Francisco Bay fell apart last year after locals protested. 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@ 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.
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Bleak, Defeatist Rise of 'Climate Realism'
Amid all the bad climate news flowing out of the Trump administration, you might have missed a quiet new consensus congealing in think tanks and big business. The targets set out by the Paris climate agreement, they argue—to limit global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—are a lost cause. It's time to prepare for a world warmed by at least three degrees Celsius. Owing to 'recent setbacks to global decarbonization efforts,' Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a research report last month, they 'now expect a 3°C world.' The 'baseline' scenario that JP Morgan Chase uses to assess its own transition risk—essentially, the economic impact that decarbonization could have on its high-carbon investments—similarly 'assumes that no additional emissions reduction policies are implemented by governments' and that the world could reach '3°C or more of warming' by 2100. The Climate Realism Initiative launched on Monday by the Council on Foreign Relations similarly presumes that the world is likely on track to warm on average by three degrees or more this century. The essay announcing the initiative calls the prospect of reaching net-zero global emissions by 2050 'utterly implausible.' The prescriptions that flow from those assessments are bleak. Naturally, Wall Street is looking to find investment opportunities and avoid risks to its clients' portfolios amid severe droughts, feet of sea-level rise, and widespread crop failures. As reporter Corbin Hiar noted for E&E News, Morgan Stanley projects that a three-degrees warming scenario 'could more than double the growth rate of the $235 billion cooling market every year, from 3 percent to 7 percent until 2030.' Banks joined other corporations in bragging about their climate goals over the last several years. These more recent reports, by contrast—consistent with their widespread abandonment of those climate goals—are in keeping with what they've always done, and will always do: try to make money. When governments were eager to pour billions of dollars into subsidizing green technologies, banks and other companies advertised their willingness to take advantage of those incentives and cozied up to the wealthy, climate-minded governments that were offering them. Times have changed. While it's no longer fashionable for corporations to broadcast their green bona fides, financial institutions with an obligation to make money for their clients and shareholders still have to take costly climate risks—from rising insurance premiums to supply chain disruptions—seriously. They just aren't calling themselves climate champions for doing so. The brand of climate cynicism being voiced by the Council on Foreign Relations is more novel. In an essay outlining the founding principles of the Climate Realism Initiative, Varun Sivarum—the program's director and a former top aide to Biden-era U.S. climate envoy John Kerry—describes a zero-sum, catastrophically climate-changed world where 'other countries will single-mindedly prioritize their own interests' and the United States should do the same. Facing climate-fueled mass migration 'of at least hundreds of millions of climate refugees [that] could upend the international order, and increasingly grisly natural disasters,' the U.S. 'should provide the support it can, cooperate with countries on building resilience capabilities, and protect its borders,' as well as 'prepare for global competition for resources and military positioning that is intensifying in the melting Arctic.' As emissions continue to rise from emerging economies, Sivarum calls on policymakers to treat climate change as a 'top national security priority—on the level of averting nuclear war and engaging in great-power competition with China,' working with allies to penalize countries whose emissions continue to rise. Acknowledging that such an approach is 'fundamentally unfair,' Sivarum makes the case for an America First climate policy. 'Nevertheless, the fact is that foreign emissions are endangering the American homeland,' he argues. 'Every tool of the U.S. and allies' arsenals, spanning diplomatic and economic coercion to military might, should be on the table.' Donald Trump and his top allies don't seem to think climate change is real, or that it's a bad thing. But as the White House threatens to invade Greenland for its minerals and disappears people into Salvadoran prisons, it's helping to build precisely the kinds of climate resilience that the Council on Foreign Relations—with its roster of Biden and Obama White House alumni—seems to be championing. Bleak as warming projections are, a planet where governments and businesses fight to the death for their own profitable share of a hotter, more chaotic planet is bleaker still. The only thing worse than a right wing that doesn't take climate change seriously might be one that does, and can muster support from both sides of the aisle to put 'America First' in a warming, warring world.
