Latest news with #UniversityofWashington
_2025_07_29_19_41_25.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
GMA Network
12 hours ago
- Health
- GMA Network
AI-designed antivenom could offer new hope for snakebite victims
Scientists in Denmark are using artificial intelligence to design antivenoms to help snakebite victims. The researchers hope the antitoxins will one day be cheaper and easier to produce than traditional products—and may work faster. Timothy Patrick Jenkins from the Technical University of Denmark leads the AI antivenom research team alongside Nobel laureate David Baker from the University of Washington. They've been using AI to design proteins that can effectively neutralize snake venom toxins that can kill and maim. 'Snake venoms are these incredibly complex cocktails of different molecules, so-called proteins. And we need to know what the most medically relevant toxins are. So, we use different techniques to identify these,'' Jenkins said. ''We then have a very close look at the structure of them, throw them into advanced AI models, and then actually use these to custom make basically glue to these toxins. So, we stick a protein to a toxin that might be attacking our nervous system, destroying our cells, and causing our blood to clot. And what we do is bind something to it, stick something to it, so it can't do this anymore.' The proteins they are designing target so-called "three-finger toxins"—potent neurotoxins that disrupt nerve signals, causing paralysis or death if untreated. Early tests of the proteins in mice have led to an 80-100% survival rate. The World Health Organization estimates there are around 5 million snakebites annually, causing between 81,000 and 138,000 deaths. Most of these occur in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where agricultural workers and children are the most affected. Jenkins says there is a scarcity of antivenoms and poor management of snake bites in large parts of the world. And while not yet a complete replacement for current antivenoms, the researchers hope their work could one day supplement existing remedies and lead to more accessible, effective, and affordable snakebite therapies. 'My personal hope is that within five years, we've completed our first clinical trials where we can actually say that there is a product ready to be delivered to patients,'' Jenkins said. — Reuters
Politico
a day ago
- Science
- Politico
Alameda was just the tip (of the geoengineering iceberg)
With help from Alex Nieves and Camille von Kaenel SEA LEGS: Remember last year's short-lived climate experiment in San Francisco Bay to test the prospects of altering cloud behavior by spraying seawater into the air? Turns out researchers had been planning something much bigger than the series of sprays off the deck of the USS Hornet, a retired aircraft carrier docked in Alameda. As Corbin Hiar reports for POLITICO's E&E News, University of Washington researchers were secretly planning on deploying their technology across a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico. Even before last year's test began, the researchers were talking with consultants and donors (including cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and venture capitalist Chris Sacca) about conducting a 3,900-square-mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents Corbin obtained through an open records request to the University of Washington. 'At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space,' said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The plans would have been contingent on the Alameda experiment going well — which it didn't, after city officials got so much public pushback and were so taken aback by the project's lack of transparency that they ordered a halt to it. University of Washington researchers downplayed the latest findings, saying that their work would have focused on research rather than deployment. The program does not 'recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate,' Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to Corbin. But unaffiliated academics said the process was flawed. 'Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities,' said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. 'That's a serious misstep.' It's another public-relations setback for geoengineering writ large, which is drawing criticism from both ends of the scientific spectrum. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.' And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology, reposted Corbin's story on Sunday. 'There are many extreme and potentially deadly geoengineering projects happening,' she said. 'We must pass my Clear Skies Act to protect our skies and our sun!!' — CH, DK Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here! MISS US?: The news kept happening last week while California Climate was off. Here's what went down on POLITICO Pro: Desperate times: The California Energy Commission confirmed Wednesday that it's convening discussions with 'market players' ahead of Valero and Phillips 66's planned closure of two of the state's nine refineries by April 2026, which together account for 17 percent of the state's refining capacity. It's the latest move from Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration to woo oil companies back to the state, coming on the heels of legislative language to ease oil-well permitting. LCFS in the crosshairs: Environmental groups sued the California Air Resources Board (again) over the state's controversial emissions trading market for transportation fuels, arguing that the agency didn't consider costs for low-income communities when it adopted new program rules last year. The groups, including Food and Water Watch and the Animal Defense Legal Fund, filed the lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court. The groups also challenged the LCFS amendments in a December lawsuit claiming the agency fell short of requirements in the California Environmental Quality Act by not fully analyzing the environmental and community costs of its update. A new plan for powering data centers: The California Public Utilities Commission signed off on a new interim rule that will allow PG&E to connect data centers and other large energy users to the grid more quickly. Those energy users will now have standardized permitting requirements, instead of having to apply on a case-by-case basis, potentially shaving months off the time it takes to be approved. Only customers able to pay for the transmission costs upfront will be eligible. A smelly agreement: U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a deal with Mexican officials Thursday to speed up repairs and upgrades to wastewater treatment infrastructure in an effort to stop untreated sewage from flowing into San Diego waters. The U.S. agreed to expand capacity at a major wastewater treatment plant and release funding to complete pump station and collection pipe repairs, while the Mexican government pledged to look for funding to accelerate planned construction on projects. Delta dealing: The State Water Resources Control Board on Thursday endorsed a proposal, backed by Newsom, that would allow cities and farmers to conserve water and restore habitat instead of abiding by minimum flow requirements. Newsom praised the board after the hearing, but groups like the Golden State Salmon Association accused board members of 'collapsing under pressure' to approve voluntary agreements environmentalists and tribes have long criticized as too lenient and lacking accountability. — AN, CvK SOME OPTIONS: Electric vehicle advocates are pushing Newsom and agency officials to double down on EV investments as they scramble to counterbalance the Trump administration's rollback of the state's sales mandates and Biden-era tax incentives. A group of EV manufacturers, charger developers and environmentalists — including Rivian, Terawatt and the Natural Resources Defense Council — sent a letter to state officials last week, calling on them to backfill federal cuts to EV rebates and offer more financing and permitting streamlining for charging infrastructure. The seven-page letter also urges the state to reauthorize its cap-and-trade program and protect the low-carbon fuel standard, a pair of carbon-trading markets that provide funding for EV incentives and infrastructure. The industry's policy outline comes after Newsom issued an executive order June 12 giving state agencies 60 days to issue recommendations for maintaining EV adoption and as CARB is holding a series of public meetings around the state to gather options (the next one is scheduled for Thursday). — AN ENDANGERMENT IN DANGER: The Trump administration is about to take a sledgehammer to the cornerstone of the federal government's efforts to regulate carbon emissions. The EPA plans to release a proposal Tuesday that would overturn a 2009 scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare — the predicate for most climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, Jean Chemnick and Zack Colman report for POLITICO's E&E News. If the courts uphold Trump's move to repeal the endangerment finding, it could be easier for EPA to quickly undo a host of Biden-era climate rules for power plants and oil and gas methane without replacing them with new standards. That's on top of the administration's assault on state climate policies, like California's electric vehicle mandate, which Republicans revoked last month. — AN, JC, ZC RAKESTRAW RETURNS: Newsom reappointed Andrew Rakestraw as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety on Friday. Rakestraw, a former climate adviser for the Biden administration, was appointed in March to finish the term of former chair Jeanne Rizzo, who retired in February. He was previously a senior climate negotiator at the U.S. Department of State and a senior adviser for John Kerry, Biden's climate envoy. — Nearly two dozen California House representatives are demanding NOAA investigate a spike in gray whale deaths off the state's coast. — Replacement tires are generally less fuel-efficient than those that come on new cars, costing drivers extra gas money and increasing emissions, a new study finds. — The Trump administration is celebrating the revival of three oil rigs off Santa Barbara, as state regulators pursue fines and cease-and-desist orders against the company behind the restart.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Science
- Time of India
This bird remembers human faces for 5+ years and might attack for rude behaviour!
Crows are among the most interesting creatures in the bird world, not merely for their sleek black feathers or sharp caws, but for the clever intelligence they possess. Could one ever imagine being remembered by a bird or having a long held grudge not among the birds but against some specific human beings? Surprisingly, scientific research has shown that some crows can remember human faces for years and differentiate between those who have threatened them and those who treated them kindly. They don't only form memories, they also share these impressions with other crows in their community, influencing behavior across generations even long after encounters. Crows belong to the corvid family, and they are widely acclaimed to use tools that set them apart, like their emotional and social intelligence that truly astonishes scientists. In studies performed by John Marzluff and colleagues at the University of Washington, American crows showed crows recognizing individual human faces and associating them with past events. What was done in the experiment? In an experiment starting in 2006, researchers wearing a distinctive 'caveman' mask captured and banded several crows. Later, anyone wearing that mask, even different individuals, was met with harsh and mobbing behavior. Meanwhile, those wearing a neutral mask were ignored. This behavior persisted for at least 2.7 years, and even crows that had never been trapped joined in mobbing, showing knowledge had transferred socially within the group. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Owner Stunned When He Realizes Why Former Police Dog Barks Nonstop At Tree Undo Brain imaging studies including PET scans, with wild crows confirmed the neurological basis for this behaviour. When crows viewed a face linked with trapping, brain regions tied to fear lit up. In contrast, the mask associated with caretaking triggered a soft and humble attitude from the birds Surprisingly, in 2011, Marzluff noted that the crow community continued to scold the 'dangerous' mask several years later, even after most original birds had died, underscoring cultural transmission of memory. Crows can also recognise human eye contact and their actions When a person walks directly toward them with focused eye contact, crows scatter quickly. But if someone walks past with eyes averted, they often remain still, which tells that the crows also recognize the difference between threat and avoidance. As for emotional bias, crows don't just remember bad experiences. Those who encounter kind behavior, such as being fed or non-threatening individuals, are more relaxed and may reward people with curiosity rather than hostility. In some cases, crows have even brought gifts to humans who treat them well, documented in anecdotal reports by Marzluff about crows offering small tokens like beads or trinkets
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Researchers quietly planned a test to dim sunlight. They wanted to ‘avoid scaring' the public.
A team of researchers in California drew notoriety last year with an aborted experiment on a retired aircraft carrier that sought to test a machine for creating clouds. But behind the scenes, they were planning a much larger and potentially riskier study of salt water-spraying equipment that could eventually be used to dim the sun's rays — a multimillion-dollar project aimed at producing clouds over a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico. The details outlined in funding requests, emails, texts and other records obtained by POLITICO's E&E News raise new questions about a secretive billionaire-backed initiative that oversaw last year's brief solar geoengineering experiment on the San Francisco Bay. They also offer a rare glimpse into the vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth's warming, work that has often occurred outside public view. Such research is drawing increased interest at a time when efforts to address the root cause of climate change — burning fossil fuels — are facing setbacks in the U.S. and Europe. But the notion of human tinkering with the weather and climate has drawn a political backlash and generated conspiracy theories, adding to the challenges of mounting even small-scale tests. Last year's experiment, led by the University of Washington and intended to run for months, lasted about 20 minutes before being shut down by Alameda city officials who objected that nobody had told them about it beforehand. That initial test was only meant to be a prequel. Even before it began, the researchers were talking with donors and consultants about conducting a 3,900-square mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents obtained by E&E News through an open records request to the University of Washington. "At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space," said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The massive experiment would have been contingent upon the successful completion of the thwarted pilot test on the carrier deck in Alameda, according to the plan. The records offer no indication of whether the researchers or their billionaire backers have since abandoned the larger project. Before the setback in Alameda, the team had received some federal funding and hoped to gain access to government ships and planes, the documents show. The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to "fill gaps in the information" needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective. In the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment. "Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities," said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz. "That's a serious misstep." In response to questions, University of Washington officials downplayed the magnitude of the proposed experiment and its potential to change weather patterns. Instead, they focused on the program's goal of showing that the instruments for making clouds could work in a real-world setting. They also pushed back on critics' assertions that they were operating secretively, noting that team members had previously disclosed the potential for open-ocean testing in scientific papers. The program does not "recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate," Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no "plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate," she added. Solar geoengineering encompasses a suite of hypothetical technologies and processes for reducing global warming by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth that are largely unregulated at the federal level. The two most researched approaches include releasing sulfate particles in the stratosphere or spraying saltwater aerosols over the ocean. But critics of the technologies warn that they could also disrupt weather patterns — potentially affecting farm yields, wildlife and people. Even if they succeed in cooling the climate, temperatures could spike upward if the processes are abruptly shut down before countries have transitioned away from burning planet-warming fossil fuels, an outcome described by experts as 'termination shock.' As a result, even researching them is controversial — and conspiracy theories driven by weather tragedies have worsened the backlash. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology. Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, has embraced similar untruths. Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it "cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner." And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Conspiracy theories involving the weather have reached enough of a pitch that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a tranche of information this month debunking the decades-old claim that jet planes intentionally release dangerous chemicals in their exhaust to alter the weather or control people's minds. The small Alameda experiment was one of several outdoor solar geoengineering studies that have been halted in recent years due to concerns that organizers had failed to consult with local communities. The city council voted to block the sprayer test in June 2024 after Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, a Democrat, complained that she had first learned about it by reading a New York Times article. The Alameda officials' sharp reaction echoed responses to past blunders by other geoengineering researchers. An experiment in Sweden's Arctic region that sought to release reflective particles in the stratosphere was canceled in 2021 after Indigenous people and environmentalists accused Harvard University of sidelining them. The entire program, known as SCoPEx, was terminated last year. "It's absolutely imperative to engage with both local communities and broader publics around not just the work that is being proposed or is being planned, but also the broader implications of that work," said Jinnah, the UC Santa Cruz professor, who served on the advisory board for SCoPEx. That view isn't universally shared in the solar geoengineering research community. Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments, such as the one in Alameda. "If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics," David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month. Keith previously helped lead the canceled Harvard experiment. The trove of documents shows that officials with the Marine Cloud Brightening Program were in contact with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the consulting firm Accenture as the researchers prepared for the much larger ocean test — even before the small field test had begun on the retired aircraft carrier USS Hornet. They had hoped to gain access to U.S. government ships, planes and research funding for the major experiment at sea. (NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.) After local backlash doomed the Alameda test, the team acknowledged that those federal resources were likely out of reach. The prospect of U.S. backing became more distant with the reelection of Trump, who opposes federal support for measures to limit global warming. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.) The program's donors include cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, the philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist who has appeared on Shark Tank and other TV shows. (Pritzker and Sacca didn't respond to requests for comment.) Larsen said research of marine cloud brightening is needed due to questions about the effectiveness and impacts of the technology. "At a time when scientists are facing political attacks and drastic funding cuts, we need to complement a rapid energy transition with more research into a broad range of potential climate solutions," he wrote in an email to E&E News. The 2023 research plan shows that the experiments in Alameda and at sea would have cost between $10 million and $20 million, with "large uncertainties" due to operational or government funding challenges and the potential to expand the "field studies to multiple geographic locations." They would require "significant cash at the outset" and continued support over several years, the plan said. It was submitted as part of a funding request to the Quadrature Climate Foundation, a charity associated with the London-based hedge fund Quadrature Capital. The Quadrature foundation told E&E News it had given nearly $11.9 million to SilverLining and $5 million to the University of Washington for research on solar geoengineering, which is also known as solar radiation management, or SRM. "Public and philanthropic institutions have a role in developing the knowledge needed to assess approaches like SRM," Greg De Temmerman, the foundation's chief science officer, said in a statement. The goal is to ensure that decisions about the potential use of the technologies "are made responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest." For more than a dozen years, the University of Washington has been studying marine cloud brightening to see if the potential cooling effects are worth the risks, the research team told Quadrature. "The MCB Program was formed in 2012 and operated as a largely unfunded collaboration until 2019, when modest philanthropic funding supported the commencement of dedicated effort," the plan said. The source of the program's initial financial support isn't named in the document. But the timing coincides with the establishment of SilverLining, which is six years old. SilverLining reported more than $3.6 million in revenues in 2023, the most recent year for which its tax filings are publicly available. The group does not disclose its full list of donors, although charities linked to former Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the late Gordon Moore, a co-founder of the chipmaker Intel, have reported six-figure contributions to the group. (The Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The Moore Foundation is not involved in the Marine Cloud Brightening Program," said Holly Potter, a spokesperson for the charity, adding that 'solar geoengineering research in not a focus of the foundation's work.' The program pitched Quadrature and other donors on the idea that its need for private philanthropy was only temporary. Public support would eventually arrive for solar geoengineering research, the team argued. In a 2021 update for supporters, the team said it had received $1 million over two years from NOAA and the Department of Energy for modeling studies and had begun work on the modified snow-making machine that the researchers would later test in Alameda. That technology is also being used in a field trial along the Great Barrier Reef that's funded in part by the Australian government. At the same time, the donor report acknowledged the potential for "public perception challenges" like those that would later short-circuit the Alameda field test. "The MCB Program is well-positioned both in terms of its government ties, scientific analogues and careful positioning to move forward successfully, but this remains a risk." The plan for Alameda included elements to engage the public. The deck of the USS Hornet, which is now a naval museum, remained open to visitors. But the team relied on museum staff to manage relations with Alameda leaders and carefully controlled the information it provided to the public, according to the documents provided by the University of Washington that included communications among the program leaders. "We think it's safest to get air quality review help and are pursuing that in advance of engaging, but I'd avoid scaring them overly," said an Aug. 23, 2023, text message before a meeting with Hornet officials. "We want them to work largely on the assumption that things are a go." No names were attached to the messages. Then in November 2023, a climate solutions reporter from National Public Radio was planning to visit the headquarters of SRI for a story about the importance of aerosols research. A communications strategist who worked for SilverLining at the time emailed the team a clear directive: "There will be no mention of the study taking place in Alameda," wrote Jesus Chavez, the founder of the public relations firm Singularity Media, in bold, underlined text. (Chavez didn't respond to a request for comment.) At the same time, the program was closely coordinating with government scientists, documents show. The head of NOAA's chemical sciences division was one of three "VIPs' who were scheduled to visit the headquarters of SRI for a demonstration of a cloud-making machine, according to a December 2023 email from Wanser of SilverLining. Other guests included a dean from the University of Washington and an official from the private investment office of billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, a long-time supporter of geoengineering research. (Gates Ventures didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The focus of this event is on the spray technology and the science driving its requirements, validation and possible uses,' Wanser wrote to the team. The same month, the program detailed its progress toward the Alameda experiment in another donor report. 'The science plan for the study has been shared with our colleagues at NOAA and DOE,' said a draft of the report. A Department of Energy spokesperson acknowledged funding University of Washington 'research on how ambient aerosols affect clouds,' but said the agency hadn't supported "deliberate field deployment of aerosols into the environment.' On April 1, 2024, the day before the Alameda experiment was launched, the program and its consultants appeared to be laying the groundwork for additional geoengineering tests, which an adviser said would likely need the support of federal officials. Leaders from SilverLining, SRI and Accenture were invited to attend the discussion 'to kick off the next phase of our work together' in the consulting firm's 33rd floor offices in Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, a calendar invitation shows. Officials from the University of Washington and NOAA were also given the option to join. That evening, the calendar notifications show, everyone was invited to a happy hour and dinner. Accenture, SRI, the University of Washington and NOAA didn't directly respond to questions about the events. Wanser of SilverLining said in an email that the San Francisco meeting "was completely separate" from the cloud brightening program, even though it included many of the same researchers. The following afternoon, team members and Accenture executives planned to give a sprayer demonstration to Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and board chair of the think tanks Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, and Michael Brune, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, according to another scheduling document. It was an important moment for the team. The same technology that was being tested on the aircraft carrier's deck would also be deployed in the much larger open-ocean experiment, the research plan shows. "I was impressed with the team that was putting it together," Brune said in an interview. He attended the demo as an adviser to Larson, the crypto entrepreneur who has donated to SilverLining via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Brune, who lives in Alameda, said he wasn't aware of the larger experiment until E&E News contacted him. "The engagement with leaders here in Alameda was subpar, and the controversy was pretty predictable," he added. In May 2024, city officials halted the experiment after complaining about the secrecy surrounding it. They also accused the organizers of violating the Hornet's lease, which was only intended to allow museum-related activities. (The Hornet didn't respond to a request for comment.) At a city council meeting the following month, Mayor Ashcraft said she wanted "a deeper understanding of the unintended consequences … not just of this small-scale experiment, but of the science, of this technology [and] where it's leading to." Then she and the other four council members voted unanimously to block the program from resuming its experiment. Between April 2024 and the city council's vote that June, the research team scrambled to limit public backlash against the test. By then, the controversy had attracted national and local media attention. The information request from E&E News sought roughly 14 months of text messages from or to Doherty and Robert Wood, another University of Washington researcher, that included or mentioned their collaborators at SilverLining or SRI. Some of the text messages that were shared by the university did not specify the sender, and Doherty and Wood did not respond to questions about them. In one text message chain on May 15, 2024, one person suggested SilverLining would pay to keep the Hornet museum closed when the tests were running "to give us some breathing space." The sender added, "for risk management and the project [it's] an easy call, and we can cover it." But an unidentified second person responded that "the community could actually find it additionally problematic that the project kept the Hornet shut down." The team members sent each other letters from people who supported the program, including one from science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, whose 2020 novel Ministry of the Future featured a rogue nation that unilaterally implemented planetary-scale solar geoengineering. "The truth is that in the coming decades we are going to have to cope with climate change in many ways involving both technologies and social decisions," he wrote to the city council on May 29, 2024. The Alameda experiment "has the advantage of exploring a mitigation method that is potentially very significant, while also being localized, modular, and reversible. These are qualities that aren't often attributed to geoengineering." After the council vote, SilverLining hired a new public relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to handle the media attention. It also discussed organizing local events to recruit potential allies, emails show. Wanser, SilverLining's executive director, wrote in a June 6, 2024, email to the research team that the program was considering "another run at a proposal to the city post-election, with, hopefully, a build up of local support and education in the interim." Ashcraft, the mayor, said in an email to E&E News that she is "not aware of any additional outreach with the community" by the researchers, adding that they hadn't engaged with her or city staff since the vote. Meanwhile, even before Trump returned to office, the team had begun acknowledging that its mistakes in Alameda had decreased the likelihood of gaining government support for solar geoengineering research. Access to federal aircraft "isn't going to happen any time soon," Doherty, the program director, wrote to Wanser and other team members on June 14, 2024. The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted. That doesn't mean the team was wise to closely guard its plans, said Visioni, who last year helped author ethical guidelines for solar geoengineering research. "There's a difference between what they should have been required to do and what it would have been smart for them to do, from a transparent perspective, to gain the public's trust," he said. Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
2 days ago
- Science
- Politico
Researchers quietly planned a test to dim sunlight. They wanted to ‘avoid scaring' the public.
They also offer a rare glimpse into the vast scope of research aimed at finding ways to counter the Earth's warming, work that has often occurred outside public view. Such research is drawing increased interest at a time when efforts to address the root cause of climate change — burning fossil fuels — are facing setbacks in the U.S. and Europe. But the notion of human tinkering with the weather and climate has drawn a political backlash and generated conspiracy theories, adding to the challenges of mounting even small-scale tests. Last year's experiment, led by the University of Washington and intended to run for months, lasted about 20 minutes before being shut down by Alameda city officials who objected that nobody had told them about it beforehand. That initial test was only meant to be a prequel. Even before it began, the researchers were talking with donors and consultants about conducting a 3,900-square mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents obtained by E&E News through an open records request to the University of Washington. 'At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space,' said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program. The massive experiment would have been contingent upon the successful completion of the thwarted pilot test on the carrier deck in Alameda, according to the plan. The records offer no indication of whether the researchers or their billionaire backers have since abandoned the larger project. Before the setback in Alameda, the team had received some federal funding and hoped to gain access to government ships and planes, the documents show. The university and its partners — a solar geoengineering research advocacy group called SilverLining and the scientific nonprofit SRI International — didn't respond to detailed questions about the status of the larger cloud experiment. But SilverLining's executive director, Kelly Wanser, said in an email that the Marine Cloud Brightening Program aimed to 'fill gaps in the information' needed to determine if the technologies are safe and effective. In the initial experiment, the researchers appeared to have disregarded past lessons about building community support for studies related to altering the climate, and instead kept their plans from the public and lawmakers until the testing was underway, some solar geoengineering experts told E&E News. The experts also expressed surprise at the size of the planned second experiment. 'Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities,' said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California in Santa Cruz. 'That's a serious misstep.' In response to questions, University of Washington officials downplayed the magnitude of the proposed experiment and its potential to change weather patterns. Instead, they focused on the program's goal of showing that the instruments for making clouds could work in a real-world setting. They also pushed back on critics' assertions that they were operating secretively, noting that team members had previously disclosed the potential for open-ocean testing in scientific papers. The program does not 'recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate,' Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to E&E News. She emphasized that the program remains focused on researching the technology, not deploying it. There are no 'plans for conducting large-scale studies that would alter weather or climate,' she added. Growing calls for regulation Solar geoengineering encompasses a suite of hypothetical technologies and processes for reducing global warming by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth that are largely unregulated at the federal level. The two most researched approaches include releasing sulfate particles in the stratosphere or spraying saltwater aerosols over the ocean. But critics of the technologies warn that they could also disrupt weather patterns — potentially affecting farm yields, wildlife and people. Even if they succeed in cooling the climate, temperatures could spike upward if the processes are abruptly shut down before countries have transitioned away from burning planet-warming fossil fuels, an outcome described by experts as 'termination shock.' As a result, even researching them is controversial — and conspiracy theories driven by weather tragedies have worsened the backlash. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology. Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, has embraced similar untruths. Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.' And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Conspiracy theories involving the weather have reached enough of a pitch that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a tranche of information this month debunking the decades-old claim that jet planes intentionally release dangerous chemicals in their exhaust to alter the weather or control people's minds. The small Alameda experiment was one of several outdoor solar geoengineering studies that have been halted in recent years due to concerns that organizers had failed to consult with local communities. The city council voted to block the sprayer test in June 2024 after Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, a Democrat, complained that she had first learned about it by reading a New York Times article. The Alameda officials' sharp reaction echoed responses to past blunders by other geoengineering researchers. An experiment in Sweden's Arctic region that sought to release reflective particles in the stratosphere was canceled in 2021 after Indigenous people and environmentalists accused Harvard University of sidelining them. The entire program, known as SCoPEx, was terminated last year. 'It's absolutely imperative to engage with both local communities and broader publics around not just the work that is being proposed or is being planned, but also the broader implications of that work,' said Jinnah, the UC Santa Cruz professor, who served on the advisory board for SCoPEx. That view isn't universally shared in the solar geoengineering research community. Some scientists believe that the perils of climate change are too dire to not pursue the technology, which they say can be safely tested in well-designed experiments, such as the one in Alameda. 'If we really were serious about the idea that to do any controversial topic needs some kind of large-scale consensus before we can research the topic, I think that means we don't research topics,' David Keith, a geophysical sciences professor at the University of Chicago, said at a think tank discussion last month. Keith previously helped lead the canceled Harvard experiment. Team sought U.S. ships, planes and funding The trove of documents shows that officials with the Marine Cloud Brightening Program were in contact with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the consulting firm Accenture as the researchers prepared for the much larger ocean test — even before the small field test had begun on the retired aircraft carrier USS Hornet. They had hoped to gain access to U.S. government ships, planes and research funding for the major experiment at sea. (NOAA did not respond to a request for comment.) After local backlash doomed the Alameda test, the team acknowledged that those federal resources were likely out of reach. The prospect of U.S. backing became more distant with the reelection of Trump, who opposes federal support for measures to limit global warming. (The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.) The program's donors include cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, the philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and Chris Sacca, a venture capitalist who has appeared on Shark Tank and other TV shows. (Pritzker and Sacca didn't respond to requests for comment.) Larsen said research of marine cloud brightening is needed due to questions about the effectiveness and impacts of the technology. 'At a time when scientists are facing political attacks and drastic funding cuts, we need to complement a rapid energy transition with more research into a broad range of potential climate solutions,' he wrote in an email to E&E News. The 2023 research plan shows that the experiments in Alameda and at sea would have cost between $10 million and $20 million, with 'large uncertainties' due to operational or government funding challenges and the potential to expand the 'field studies to multiple geographic locations.' They would require 'significant cash at the outset' and continued support over several years, the plan said. It was submitted as part of a funding request to the Quadrature Climate Foundation, a charity associated with the London-based hedge fund Quadrature Capital. The Quadrature foundation told E&E News it had given nearly $11.9 million to SilverLining and $5 million to the University of Washington for research on solar geoengineering, which is also known as solar radiation management, or SRM. 'Public and philanthropic institutions have a role in developing the knowledge needed to assess approaches like SRM,' Greg De Temmerman, the foundation's chief science officer, said in a statement. The goal is to ensure that decisions about the potential use of the technologies 'are made responsibly, transparently, and in the public interest.' 'Avoid scaring them' For more than a dozen years, the University of Washington has been studying marine cloud brightening to see if the potential cooling effects are worth the risks, the research team told Quadrature. 'The MCB Program was formed in 2012 and operated as a largely unfunded collaboration until 2019, when modest philanthropic funding supported the commencement of dedicated effort,' the plan said. The source of the program's initial financial support isn't named in the document. But the timing coincides with the establishment of SilverLining, which is six years old. SilverLining reported more than $3.6 million in revenues in 2023, the most recent year for which its tax filings are publicly available. The group does not disclose its full list of donors, although charities linked to former Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the late Gordon Moore, a co-founder of the chipmaker Intel, have reported six-figure contributions to the group. (The Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The Moore Foundation is not involved in the Marine Cloud Brightening Program,' said Holly Potter, a spokesperson for the charity, adding that 'solar geoengineering research in not a focus of the foundation's work.' The program pitched Quadrature and other donors on the idea that its need for private philanthropy was only temporary. Public support would eventually arrive for solar geoengineering research, the team argued. In a 2021 update for supporters, the team said it had received $1 million over two years from NOAA and the Department of Energy for modeling studies and had begun work on the modified snow-making machine that the researchers would later test in Alameda. That technology is also being used in a field trial along the Great Barrier Reef that's funded in part by the Australian government. At the same time, the donor report acknowledged the potential for 'public perception challenges' like those that would later short-circuit the Alameda field test. 'The MCB Program is well-positioned both in terms of its government ties, scientific analogues and careful positioning to move forward successfully, but this remains a risk.' The plan for Alameda included elements to engage the public. The deck of the USS Hornet, which is now a naval museum, remained open to visitors. But the team relied on museum staff to manage relations with Alameda leaders and carefully controlled the information it provided to the public, according to the documents provided by the University of Washington that included communications among the program leaders. 'We think it's safest to get air quality review help and are pursuing that in advance of engaging, but I'd avoid scaring them overly,' said an Aug. 23, 2023, text message before a meeting with Hornet officials. 'We want them to work largely on the assumption that things are a go.' No names were attached to the messages. Then in November 2023, a climate solutions reporter from National Public Radio was planning to visit the headquarters of SRI for a story about the importance of aerosols research. A communications strategist who worked for SilverLining at the time emailed the team a clear directive: 'There will be no mention of the study taking place in Alameda,' wrote Jesus Chavez, the founder of the public relations firm Singularity Media, in bold, underlined text. (Chavez didn't respond to a request for comment.) At the same time, the program was closely coordinating with government scientists, documents show. The head of NOAA's chemical sciences division was one of three 'VIPs' who were scheduled to visit the headquarters of SRI for a demonstration of a cloud-making machine, according to a December 2023 email from Wanser of SilverLining. Other guests included a dean from the University of Washington and an official from the private investment office of billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, a long-time supporter of geoengineering research. (Gates Ventures didn't respond to a request for comment.) 'The focus of this event is on the spray technology and the science driving its requirements, validation and possible uses,' Wanser wrote to the team. The same month, the program detailed its progress toward the Alameda experiment in another donor report. 'The science plan for the study has been shared with our colleagues at NOAA and DOE,' said a draft of the report. A Department of Energy spokesperson acknowledged funding University of Washington 'research on how ambient aerosols affect clouds,' but said the agency hadn't supported 'deliberate field deployment of aerosols into the environment.' Mayor wondered 'where it's leading to' On April 1, 2024, the day before the Alameda experiment was launched, the program and its consultants appeared to be laying the groundwork for additional geoengineering tests, which an adviser said would likely need the support of federal officials. Leaders from SilverLining, SRI and Accenture were invited to attend the discussion 'to kick off the next phase of our work together' in the consulting firm's 33rd floor offices in Salesforce Tower, the tallest building in San Francisco, a calendar invitation shows. Officials from the University of Washington and NOAA were also given the option to join. That evening, the calendar notifications show, everyone was invited to a happy hour and dinner. Accenture, SRI, the University of Washington and NOAA didn't directly respond to questions about the events. Wanser of SilverLining said in an email that the San Francisco meeting 'was completely separate' from the cloud brightening program, even though it included many of the same researchers. The following afternoon, team members and Accenture executives planned to give a sprayer demonstration to Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune and board chair of the think tanks Third Way and the Breakthrough Institute, and Michael Brune, a former executive director of the Sierra Club, according to another scheduling document. It was an important moment for the team. The same technology that was being tested on the aircraft carrier's deck would also be deployed in the much larger open-ocean experiment, the research plan shows. 'I was impressed with the team that was putting it together,' Brune said in an interview. He attended the demo as an adviser to Larson, the crypto entrepreneur who has donated to SilverLining via the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Brune, who lives in Alameda, said he wasn't aware of the larger experiment until E&E News contacted him. 'The engagement with leaders here in Alameda was subpar, and the controversy was pretty predictable,' he added. In May 2024, city officials halted the experiment after complaining about the secrecy surrounding it. They also accused the organizers of violating the Hornet's lease, which was only intended to allow museum-related activities. (The Hornet didn't respond to a request for comment.) At a city council meeting the following month, Mayor Ashcraft said she wanted 'a deeper understanding of the unintended consequences … not just of this small-scale experiment, but of the science, of this technology [and] where it's leading to.' Then she and the other four council members voted unanimously to block the program from resuming its experiment. Using federal aircraft 'isn't going to happen' Between April 2024 and the city council's vote that June, the research team scrambled to limit public backlash against the test. By then, the controversy had attracted national and local media attention. The information request from E&E News sought roughly 14 months of text messages from or to Doherty and Robert Wood, another University of Washington researcher, that included or mentioned their collaborators at SilverLining or SRI. Some of the text messages that were shared by the university did not specify the sender, and Doherty and Wood did not respond to questions about them. In one text message chain on May 15, 2024, one person suggested SilverLining would pay to keep the Hornet museum closed when the tests were running 'to give us some breathing space.' The sender added, 'for risk management and the project [it's] an easy call, and we can cover it.' But an unidentified second person responded that 'the community could actually find it additionally problematic that the project kept the Hornet shut down.' The team members sent each other letters from people who supported the program, including one from science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson, whose 2020 novel Ministry of the Future featured a rogue nation that unilaterally implemented planetary-scale solar geoengineering. 'The truth is that in the coming decades we are going to have to cope with climate change in many ways involving both technologies and social decisions,' he wrote to the city council on May 29, 2024. The Alameda experiment 'has the advantage of exploring a mitigation method that is potentially very significant, while also being localized, modular, and reversible. These are qualities that aren't often attributed to geoengineering.' After the council vote, SilverLining hired a new public relations firm, Berlin Rosen, to handle the media attention. It also discussed organizing local events to recruit potential allies, emails show. Wanser, SilverLining's executive director, wrote in a June 6, 2024, email to the research team that the program was considering 'another run at a proposal to the city post-election, with, hopefully, a build up of local support and education in the interim.' Ashcraft, the mayor, said in an email to E&E News that she is 'not aware of any additional outreach with the community' by the researchers, adding that they hadn't engaged with her or city staff since the vote. Meanwhile, even before Trump returned to office, the team had begun acknowledging that its mistakes in Alameda had decreased the likelihood of gaining government support for solar geoengineering research. Access to federal aircraft 'isn't going to happen any time soon,' Doherty, the program director, wrote to Wanser and other team members on June 14, 2024. The studies that the program is pursuing are scientifically sound and would be unlikely to alter weather patterns — even for the Puerto Rico-sized test, said Daniele Visioni, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Cornell University. Nearly 30 percent of the planet is already covered by clouds, he noted. That doesn't mean the team was wise to closely guard its plans, said Visioni, who last year helped author ethical guidelines for solar geoengineering research. 'There's a difference between what they should have been required to do and what it would have been smart for them to do, from a transparent perspective, to gain the public's trust,' he said.
