Can we artificially cool the planet? A major environmental group is spending millions to find out

A leading environmental group is expected to channel millions of dollars into research into solar geoengineering, a proposed solution to climate change that has raised skepticism and even fears about unintended consequences.

Solar geoengineering encompasses a range of tactics to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight, perhaps artificially lighting clouds or launching reflective particles into the atmosphere. Rogue efforts to test these theories have raised alarm because scientists don’t know much about what other effects it could cause. This has led to calls for more research to fill these knowledge gaps before more studies move forward.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) plans to distribute “millions of dollars” in grants for solar geoengineering research, The New York Times reports. EDF says On the edge shares concerns about solar geoengineering, which is why it supports studies into the potential repercussions it could have.

“We are very concerned about the unintended consequences of [solar geoengineering]and that’s why we’re focusing on policy-relevant research that will help estimate potential impacts and develop the kind of policy-relevant science needed to help governments make informed decisions,” said Lisa Dilling, associate chief scientist at EDF, by email.

EDF declined to say how much money it would invest in solar geoengineering studies. He also refused to say who his financiers are for this initiative, although The New York Times names the LAD Climate Fund — led by partners who held leadership roles at Cisco Systems — as a donor.

Next steps include working with scientists to “develop a research agenda focusing on near-term impacts” and creating a “governance structure,” says Dilling. After putting these barriers in place, EDF plans to award research projects that will share their results in journals and conferences.

Heated negotiations at the United Nations Environment Assembly in March did not result in new international guidelines for solar geoengineering. Since 2010, there has been an outdated global vision moratorium in certain types of large-scale geoengineering. The language is vague, excluding small-scale experiments that have advanced in recent years.

Last week, Alameda, California, voted to avoid Scientists at the University of Washington test new technology for spraying sea salt particles. It is part of a strategy to make clouds more reflective, called Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB). More than 30 scientists have created a paper in the diary Science Advances in March proposing a research guide for MCB.

“Interest in MCB is growing, but policymakers currently lack the information needed to make decisions about whether and when MCB should be implemented,” said lead author Graham Feingold, a researcher at NOAA’s Chemical Sciences Laboratory, in a report . Press release at the time.

A decidedly less scientific piece of solar geoengineering equipment provoked backlash last year. Mexico decided to ban future experiments after a geoengineering startup launched weather balloons filled with sulfur dioxide within its borders. The co-founders started buying and tried again in Nevada, fungicide for grilling in a parking lot to create sulfur dioxide gas.

As a pollutant, sulfur dioxide can cause acid rain. Sending reflective particles into the atmosphere, called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), could also enlarge the hole in the ozone layer in Antarctica. These are just some of the reasons why experts are concerned about moving forward with solar geoengineering without a better understanding of the potential consequences.

And ultimately, environmental advocates want to ensure that solar geoengineering doesn’t undermine efforts to transition to cleaner energy—which is the only way to truly control climate change.

“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible is essential to tackling climate change. It remains EDF’s top priority,” says EDF’s Dilling.