Who Owns the Sky? The Scary Rise of Climate Geoengineering

We’ve already been messing with the atmosphere—just not on purpose. Now, some startups (and governments) are testing ways to cool the planet on purpose. In this episode, we explore geoengineering, the science behind it, and the unsettling truth: no one’s really in charge of the sky.

Transcript

Good morning, afternoon or evening, whatever it is wherever you happen to find yourself right now. Today, we're looking up, way up, into the stratosphere, and I just heard myself saying that and oh my gosh, that’s cheesy. But anyway we’ll be looking at the stratosphere, a place where people are starting to mess with in ways that sound less like science and, well, a little more like science fiction.

We’re not just talking about cutting emissions or adapting to a warming planet anymore. We’re talking about actively tweaking the atmosphere, treating symptoms of climate change as opposed to fixing the causes, because, well, things are starting to move pretty fast, things are progressing a lot more quickly that we’ve anticipated. 

And this matters, because what happens up there, it doesn’t just stay up there. It affects every single one of us, down here.

And here’s the twist in all of this: there are a lot of people who say that we shouldn’t be messing with the molecular composition of things like the stratosphere. Thinking about it though, we’ve already been geoengineering the atmosphere—just not intentionally. Things like cargo ship emissions, jet fuel, industrial pollution… they’ve been shaping cloud formations, sunlight reflection, and even stratospheric chemistry for decades.

So this isn’t a brand-new thing for us. What is new, is the idea that we’re starting to do this on purpose.

And there’s a huge question though that lies beneath all of this: Who gets to decide what we're allowed to do up in the sky?

I’m Dave and thank you so much for joining me today on Running My Mouth Off About Climate Change. And today, we’re obviously going to talk a little bit about the stratosphere. We’ll look at some of the things that, in the name of making our planet more hospitable in the future, are actually being proposed, tested or actually implemented. We’ll look what the risks are, and who, if anyone, gets to say yes or no to messing with the stratosphere.

Here’s what kicked this episode off though: a startup in Florida is being investigated by the EPA  in the US for launching sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. This company claims that what they’re doing this in order to cool the planet. But the US government is saying, “Yeah, no, you can’t just do that just because you want to”. But honestly, the bigger story isn’t that someone’s actually doing this — it’s that there’s almost no rulebook for what goes on up there.

On land, we have laws, we have a lot of them. In the ocean? Same thing. Even space has treaties. But the stratosphere? It’s basically, using another cheesy phrase, the Wild West with weather balloons.

And since what happens up there affects every single one of us down here, we should probably talk a little bit about it. So that’s what we’re discussing today — looking at the types of climate experiments that are being considered, some of which are currently being implemented, who’s allowed to do them, and what’s at stake if we get this stuff wrong.

Before we dive into the politics though, let’s get some clarity about what’s actually on the table, what types of things being proposed. Because if we’re going to have an opinion on who should control the sky, we should probably know what people want to do with it.

So diving in, let’s look at the three main technologies that people are looking at implementing and/or implementing, in order to ensure that our planet remains a nice and comfortable place for us to live. 

First, the one gets the most airtime is called Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, or SAI for short. The idea is pretty simple: inject little tiny particles, usually sulfur dioxide, about 20 kilometers up, and let them spread. And, once they’re up there, they’ll reflect some sunlight back into space, which prevents it from reaching the troposphere, which is the part of the atmosphere in which we live.. Less sunlight finding its way into the troposphere, less heat, and we get temporary cooling.

This is something that we already know works, because we’ve seen volcanoes do it a number of times. One recent example is Mount Pinatubo, which is in the Philippines. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and it blasted about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Global temperatures then dropped by about half a degree Celsius the following year. And that doesn’t seem like a lot but, at this point, every 10th of a degree matters. And after watching volcanoes do this? That’s a huge, natural proof of concept.

The tech isn’t all that complicated either, it’s just balloons or you can even modify aircraft to do it. Compared to overhauling the entire global economy or rebuilding coastal cities because of rising temperatures and rising sea levels, this stuff is pretty much a bargain.

But yeah, big but, it’s not without its risks.

First: sulfur dioxide messes with the ozone layer. And we’ve been going to great lengths to protect that since the late 1980’s when we noticed that a huge hole was appearing in it because of things like hairspray and refrigerants. Now, there’s a chance that we can mess it up all over again buy using sulfur dioxide. 

And oh, and by the way? Sulfur dioxide is also the thing that, when in the lower levels of the atmosphere, cause acid rain. If we combine sulfur dioxide with water, we get sulfuric acid. No issues there, right? 

Second: it could potentially throw off rainfall patterns is some pretty, we’ll say disrupitve ways. The result would be something like one country cooling down, while another country gets thrown into drought. Again, that question comes up: who decides whose weather gets disrupted and when?

And third: there's this thing called “termination shock.” If we start masking the heat, and that’s all we are doing is just masking the heat, with these particles, this sulfur dioxide, and then have to stop suddenly, because of war, economic collapse, or whatever, all of that trapped heat in the upper atmosphere, will then hit us like a brick wall. It’ll come fast and it will come hard. And that kind of snap warming could be, well, catastrophic to say the least.

So yeah, we know that it works. But again, there are issues and it doesn’t save the main issue, it’s kind of like putting the planet on painkillers while hoping that we can perform surgery on it later.

Number two, the second technology we’ll look at: marine cloud brightening, and the short name that all of the cool kids call this one MCB. MCB doesn’t mess with the stratosphere, technically, it’s down in the troposphere, but it’s still trying to do the same thing, it’s still in the same family of those things that try to reflect sunlight before it has a chance to heat us up….while crossing our fingers.

The idea here is to spray salt particles into low-lying cloud formations over the ocean. And these particles would then help make the clouds brighter and puffier, which makes them reflect more sunlight. Less heat, same logic.

This has been tested in a few small areas, mostly to protect coral reefs from overheating. But we have absolutely no clue what would happens on a larger scale, we don’t know the impacts of this if taken globally. Things like regional rainfall, storm systems—those could all shift in some pretty significant and unpredictable ways.

The last one we’ll bring up is Intentional Stratospheric Dehydration, or ISD for short. And, once you hear the name, you pretty much can tell what it is: basically it’s intentionally dehydrating the stratosphere.

A lot of people don’t realize this, but water vapor, i.e., humidity, is actually a fairly powerful greenhouse gas. And the stratosphere doesn’t have a lot of it… but what is up there, traps heat. 

If you’ve ever camped in the desert, gone camping in the desert, you know can see this in action. Daytime temperatures can be crazy hot but at nighttime the temperature drops, and you’re freezing. This happens because dry air loses heat really fast. In humid places though, the water vapor acts like a blanket and it keeps the warmth in, and we can see this play out in places like Southeast Asia and the Southeastern US where, when it gets really, humid, those nighttime temperatures can never seem get cool enough.

How this happens is that water vapor prevents long wave radiation, which is another way of saying the warmth that radiates off the ground, from escaping, it keeps heat fairly localized. So, get rid of the water vapor and all of that radiant heat can escape. It essentially opens the door to let the heat out. And this is essentially what some people would like to see happen in the upper atmosphere, lose that water vapor, and let that heat go. 

So here’s how we do this though: we inject particles, again, silver iodide though is one of the more common ones used for this, into very specific cold spots where air rises up into the stratosphere. And there are places like the western Pacific ocean. I was actually just reading an article about how they’re considering implementing this off the coast of Australia. And, when it comes to doing stuff like this though, science will tell you that it has to be at the right place, at the right time. These particles though make water vapor condense into ice, which then drops back down into the troposphere before it can spread around stratosphere and trap heat. But again, this has to be done right place, right time.

But just like that, we’ll have fewer greenhouse gases up high and therefore, less warming.

The upside? Some models say that this could shave off about half a degree Celsius of warming like what happened with in the Mount Pinatubo eruption. And again, we’re at a point where every tenth of a degree matters.

The downside? No have no idea. This is a fairly new technology and we don’t know what other things this could cause. The main drawback at this point seems to be actually making sure that the material actually gets up high enough to make a positive impact. The other possible downside is that, some scientists feel that this plan could backfire, they feel that this could actually warm up. So ya, we don’t know a lot about it at this point, it’s still very new. But, hey, take a chance, you might fly, right? 

All of these strategies though have one thing in common though: they’re doing nothing to solve the problem, they’re just managing the symptoms. We're still putting out a heck of lot of greenhouse gases. So these strategies don’t fix the wound; they’re, again, those climate painkillers.

And one of the big debates going on is whether these are just amazing backup plans, or just distractions that take the pressure off of emission reductions. But even if you’re all in on these ideas, there’s still a much bigger issue: who the heck decides whether we use them at all?

And that’s what we’re diving into right now.

Let’s circle back though to that Florida startup I mentioned in the intro. The company is called Make Sunsets, because apparently, nothing says “trust us with your atmosphere” like a name that sounds like a brand of candles. I mean seriously, not to take anything away from these guys, it’s basically a two person operation and both of these guys seem, we’ll just say, really smart, and they have a touch of that, “Well, technically, it’s allowed…so we’re just gonna do it anyways” cowboy-type mentality. But again, they’ve definitely done their homework. I would’ve absolutely loved to be in the room when they were deciding on the name though. 

Anyway, back in late 2022, they launched weather balloons from Mexico carrying sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. Again, mix that with water and we get acid rain… Their goal though is to cool the planet by reflecting some of the sun’s energy. And they’re doing this to sell “cooling credits”, that’s their business model. Cooling credits are basically like carbon credits, except they’re based on the claim that every gram of sulfur dioxide released, just a gram, offsets a ton of carbon emissions. So, for ten bucks, you can feel like you were doing your part in the fight against climate change by outsourcing it to a balloon.===== 14:10

Here’s one of those kickers though: there was no peer review, no scientific oversight, no tracking of the particles, no understanding of the possible side effects. It was pretty much just, “Hey, trust us, we’re innovators.” Ya, you can say it’s bold and possibly reckless, but it’s very, very startup in its mentality. 

And again, the EPA stepped in and said, “Yeah, no, you can’t just release chemicals into the stratosphere just because you want to.” The EPA cited the Clean Air Act, it’s one of those things that protects the atmosphere from unregulated emissions of pollutants.

But here’s the thing: the response of Make Sunsets, it’s not totally wrong from a legal standpoint, and they fully admit that they’re walking that very, very fine line, with the mindset of, “Nobody owns the sky—we’re totally free to do this” And legally? They’re, pretty much, not wrong. 

So ya, there is kind of this legal limbo.

Again, airspace, the part where planes fly, it’s under national control. They’re told exactly where they can and can’t fly. Space? That’s governed by a number of international treaties like the Outer Space Treaty. But the stratosphere? It kinda fits into that gray zone of sorts that nobody’s really in charge of.

There’s no binding international law that says you can’t launch particles into it. There’s no licensing system; there are no checklists; no forms that you need to fill out. In legal terms, the stratosphere is basically international waters with a slightly better view.

The closest thing we have though, as far as I can tell, is a non-binding statement from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which says that geoengineering shouldn't be deployed until there’s enough science and global consensus. Isn’t that a nice thought? Not everybody is on board with this though, but even the ones who are? This thing, it’s not legally enforceable. 

So technically, anyone with enough money, a balloon, and a few barrels of sulfur could carry out climate experiments that affect everybody on planet, with no permission, no oversight, and zero accountability.

In other words: the sky is the limit. Literally. Man, I am just loaded with cheesy phrases today. 

So, and I feel like I may be starting to go a little long on this whole idea. But who’s actually in charge of the sky? Let’s look at that. 

Short answer: no one. Long answer: still no one, but, they are having meetings, and we all know how productive those can be.

As far as I can see, at this point at least, the UN is having some, we’ll say polite conversations about it. There’ve been reports, working groups and frameworks talked about. But nothing really enforceable yet. There’s no international body has the authority to say: “Yes, you can absolutely put particles in the sky” or “I know that you want to turn the dial down on the sun this week, but we’re not going to allow you to do that.”

And this is all crazy because when you think about it, we’ve got treaties for everything: overfishing, air travel, even debris in space. But the ability to mess with our planet’s thermostat? That one’s totally up for grabs.

Some have proposed the idea of adapting existing agreements, like the Montreal Protocol, and that was the thing that helped us phase out ozone-depleting chemicals when we were putting holes in the ozone layer back in the 1990’s. That one actually worked. But repurposing the Montreal Protocol for geoengineering? Well that’s kind of be like using a bicycle manual to fix the space shuttle. Great intentions, wrong vehicle.

In the meantime though, we’re in this bizarre holding pattern where anyone with enough drive and altitude could start climate-morphing experiments without any formal review or global consensus. And, what if something goes sideways? Absolutely nobody’s on the hook for it.

This legal gray area, it’s not just a legal vacuum—it’s more like of a power vac. And vacuum creates void, right? And those voids usually get filled.

Think about this:

A small island nation, that’s losing land to rising seas, and we have a few of those. They get tired of waiting for international action. So they start releasing sulfur dioxide into the sky on their own. From their point of view, it’s about survival, that’s completely understandable. But for neighboring countries, it could mean very different rainfall patterns, drought, or a lot of other worse things.

Or maybe it’s not a country. Maybe it’s a tech billionaire with a climate savior complex and a private fleet of jets or maybe even some spacecraft. You can probably imagine a few names right now. With enough money, they wouldn’t need permission, they’d just need that drive and the ability to get to that altitude to pull off pretty much whatever they wanted to. 

There are some people right now, who have the money and already have the vehicles that are already going into space. Names like Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk? Is it really that crazy, to think that someone, like one of these three, might take on a “personal project” for the “betterment of the environment”?

You don’t have to put a whole lot of thought into it to realize that none of this stuff is hypothetical. It’s entirely possible under the current rules, or lack thereof. Again, think about those people who have the means to do this, is this really that far out of realm of possibility? I mean, think about that. 

Here’s one of the kickers though: these interventions, these attempts to “make the world better”, they wouldn’t impact everyone equally. One area may cools off just enough to make them stop sweating, and another area loses its ability to produce rice because that monsoon decided to go somewhere else. It’s not exactly the kind of tradeoff we want happening without first having a very serious global discussion, at minimum.

It’s like handing over the ability to set the global thermostat and realizing different rooms have very different ideas about what “comfortable” means. Except in this case, those rooms are countries, and very real people live and die based on that setting.

And this is where things become even more of messed up though.

Most scientists agree that we shouldn’t be doing this. Each and every one of things that we discussed, they’er incredibly risky, haven’t been properly tested, and we don’t fully understand, or even partially understand in some cases, the long-term consequences. It’s kind of the atmospheric equivalent of doing electrical work in a flooded basement while saying, “Don’t worry, I got this, I saw a YouTube video.”

But then again, some of those same scientists also admit we might have to move in these directions.

If we blow past key climate thresholds, and let’s be honest, we’re kind of headed in that direction pretty quickly already. At that point, these solutions, these interventions, could become the only way that we can buy some more time. It’s not a fix, it’s like a tourniquet. We don’t want to use tourniquets unless we absolutely need to.

But even we have to resort to emergency procedures, and I think of the development of the COVID vaccine as I’m talking. Right now, we’ve got the technology to do these things, and we have the ability. But, unlike the vaccine, there are no systems in place to actually do them responsibly.

And that’s kind of how we end up with a worst-case scenario: somebody freaks out; a country, a company, a tech billionaire; they act unilaterally, and changes the climate for everybody.

Some scientists, I was just reading about this last week, are calling for a global moratorium on deployment, hitting that pause button, if you will, while we look at the risks and creating governance, some frameworks. Others will tell you that even thinking about going down that path, it sends us sliding down a slippery slope toward deployment.

And, thinking about it, maybe they’re both right.

What’s clear though is this: These aren’t the kind of decisions we should just stumble into; that we move forward on simply because nobody’s one’s around to say no, or have a person with a balloon and a business model answer that for us.

We are, quite literally, flying blind when it comes to this stuff.

Whether you think these ideas are smart, desperate, dangerous, or some mix of all three, the fact is: the technology is here. But the rules? Not so much.

We’re currently, at a moment where the ability to affect the entire climate system is no longer theoretical, it’s practical. And we could do it very, very quickly, and we’re talking within a matter of months.

Honestly, all you need, is a balloon and a tank of gas, and you’re good to go.

And that’s kind of what makes this stuff so urgent. Because this stuff is so possible. And all of these people who are going down these paths, they all have great intentions. 

We need more than good intentions though. We need real global conversations. We need government that doesn’t just exist in theory. And we need to ask ourselves that question before it’s answered for us. Because once we start messing around with the molecular composition of the stratosphere, there’s no undo button. We have hit a place that we cannot come back from. 

Anyway, I think we’ll stop right here. What’s up next? I’ve been doing a little reading on the idea of Climate Refugees lately, and these are people who are being forced out of the places that they live because those places are becoming inhospitable due to the changing climate. But there are some legal issues of what exactly to call them — are they refugees, or just people who simply decided to relocate just because they wanted to? And the answer to that impacts how we handle these people. And we’re talking about real people, people just like you and me, who find themselves in really, really unfortunate situations. And they have their own very real stories. That’s what we’re going to be diving into next week. 

Again, thank you so much for joining me today on Running My Mouth Off About Climate Change. I’m Dave and I hope you have an amazing week.