Beyond “Geoengineering” to Emergency Medicine for Climate

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director of SilverLining

[As published in My Climate Journey]

Sixty years ago, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee sent him a report on restoring the quality of our environment. It projected – with remarkable accuracy – the effects of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Since the report was published, temperatures have risen by about 0.8°C, astoundingly in line with the 1965 report. But the report’s most striking element may be its suggestion that possibilities for deliberately intervening in the climate system “need to be thoroughly explored”. 

What possibilities? Scientists have suggested that rapid reduction in climate warming might be best achieved through one of nature’s mechanisms – the reflection of sunlight from clouds and particles in the atmosphere (first seen in the 1972 Blue Marble image whose champion, Stewart Brand, also advanced climate intervention, or ‘geoengineering’, in public dialogue).  Later, observations of the effects from volcanic releases and pollution suggested that increasing the atmosphere’s reflectivity by just 1-2% could offset up to 2°C of global warming.

The idea of climate intervention has been controversial. In the late 20th century, modestly dialing down greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades would have been the obvious and responsible thing to do. Considering adding material into the atmosphere to try to counter warming would have, understandably, seemed wildly unhelpful.

We face a different reality today. Disasters that were far-off possibilities in the past are realities for people everywhere. The most vulnerable are being hit hardest– by drought, famine, floods, and unescapable, deadly heat. Going forward, we face an increasingly dangerous environment in which Earth’s temperature will continue to rise in every scenario for emissions reduction, displacing up to 3.2 billion people, through the mid-century.  

Today, criticism of climate intervention, including any research, carries forward the concern that it creates a panacea that will slow greenhouse gas reduction (there is some evidence to suggest that the opposite could be true.) There is also concern that governance may be impossible, though its centralized activities may be far less complex to manage than the diffuse problem of greenhouse gas emissions. (We may even have a model to work from in humanity’s most successful environmental protection effort, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.)

Where does that leave us? Governments have declared a climate emergency, but they have not developed strategies to ensure that people are safe and natural systems stable under increased warming conditions over the next 30-50 years.

There are escalating private and public investments in approaches for removing greenhouse gas from the atmosphere. If enough is removed, the climate will cool relatively quickly.  But in general, these approaches will take decades to scale to the levels required. We may get lucky, but otherwise, our best current failsafe lies in increasing the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere.

How? The most prominent approaches involve increasing the reflection of sunlight by dispersing a sea-salt mist from ships into clouds over the ocean (“marine cloud brightening”) or releasing particles into the upper atmosphere (“stratospheric aerosol intervention”).  (Surface and space-based ideas for reflecting sunlight were discounted in scientific assessments in 2009 and 2015.)  

What is the state of play?  Recent science fiction novels by Kim Stanley Robinson and Neal Stevensen are terrific reads and get a lot of the science right – except the part where interventions are fast and easy to do. They are capital-intensive to study and scale only with time and money.  Dispersing material in the atmosphere is not a solved problem, but it is also not the primary one.

Substantial research is required to evaluate the risks of interventions against projected warming so that policymakers and people around the world can review potential impacts on the climate system and on their communities. The underlying science problem –- the effects of particles (“aerosols”) on clouds and climate –- is one of the largest areas of uncertainty in climate research.  Observations and model representations of these processes are far weaker than they need to be, for both predicting climate and for evaluating interventions.  

With the right advances, we might develop early warning and response systems for major abrupt changes, similar to the U.S. program in place today to prevent asteroid strikes.

Stepping into an unusual gap, our organization, SilverLining, is advancing crucial aspects of progress. Like a medical foundation, we support research, innovation and policy in a race for objective information to help save lives.  

We work with a network of experts to identify the critical requirements - the “roadmap”-  for research, which includes both advances in observation and models to better predict near-term climate generally, and programs that integrate technology development and field studies to characterize the effects of particle releases at very small scales so that their effects can be modeled at large ones, including the global climate system, for specific climate interventions. 

We operate from the perspective that better information enables better decision-making, and, if widely shared, more constructive politics and more equitable outcomes. To that end, through programs like our partnership with Amazon Sustainability Data Initiative, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and others (deploying, for the first time ever, full climate model simulations on the cloud), we are expanding access to climate models and data for scientists around the world to study climate interventions.   

Reducing emissions is imperative. Removing carbon is a critical accelerant to achieving a sustainable climate. But we are approaching an unsafe and unstable environment that may require emergency medicine, and to navigate it safely, we have work to do.

Reflecting Sunlight Could Ensure Human Safety on a Warming Planet

Words by Stewart Patrick and Kelly Wanser [As published in Triple Pundit ]

Image credit: Huper by Joshua Earle via Unsplash

Earth has a 50-50 chance of warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the next five years, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization. Climate change has reached a dangerous place. The climate is on track to warm 2.7 to 3 degrees Celsius (4.9 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial times, with devastating consequences for human safety and well-being. Around the world, communities will suffer more frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, storms, flooding and other calamities. The changes are already being felt, with the frequency of such (not-so-natural) disasters quadrupling since 2000. As always, the world’s poor will suffer most.

More alarming still is the growing risk that warming will trigger abrupt, catastrophic shifts in Earth’s natural systems. Such potential tipping points include an accelerated melting of permafrost and a rapid collapse of the Amazon rainforest.

It’s easy to be frightened about the future we are facing with global warming. Fortunately, there may be a lifeline, albeit an unorthodox one. It is called sunlight reflection, or solar climate intervention (SCI), and it involves slightly increasing the reflection of sunlight from clouds and particles in the atmosphere to reduce climate warming. Society needs to explore this option because climate change poses a catastrophic threat now. That is the central message of a report from the Council on Foreign Relations, for which we served as author and advisor, respectively.

The world currently has three main strategies to manage climate risk: emissions reductions, carbon removal, and adaptation. Unfortunately, the changing climate is now outpacing these efforts. Emissions must decline 50 percent by 2030 to meet the 1.5°C target, but are on pace to rise 16.3 percent instead. New technologies to capture and permanently store atmospheric carbon could take decades to scale. Efforts to build resilience against warming and its impacts are expensive, underfunded, and inherently limited. Most local measures will be overrun by warming effects in the interconnected climate system.     

How much worse it will become depends on how warm it gets. Given this predicament, the world cannot afford to ignore a potentially rapid climate response that could keep people safe and natural systems stable while humanity transforms the global economy and reduces the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere. 

Increasing sunlight reflection to cool the climate could be accomplished in various ways. The most promising options are based on naturally occurring events. One approach would involve dispersing aerosols in the upper atmosphere (or stratosphere), likely from aircraft. This would be a safer version of the cooling effect of particles emitted during volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which reduced global temperatures by about 0.5°C (1.1°F) over the ensuing fifteen months. Another approach involves spraying a mist of sea salt from ships (or ocean platforms) to brighten low-lying marine clouds. This approach would be a cleaner version of the global cooling effect of current particulate pollution, estimated at 0.5-1.2°C. 
     
Despite these precedents, the idea of sunlight reflection has been controversial, though that is starting to change as the risks of warming intensify. Critics worry that climate interventions could carry large, uncertain risks and will give governments, corporations, and citizens a perceived pass to continue polluting. These warrant careful consideration. They need to be weighed not in isolation, but against the rising safety risks of an already warming the planet. The key question is: Can increasing the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere reduce the dangers posed by global warming? 

Unfortunately, we don’t know the answer because our understanding of the relevant atmospheric processes and their impacts on natural systems is too low. This leaves policymakers flying blind, unsure of the feasibility of—and unable to make informed decisions about—reflecting sunlight to cool the climate. Complicating matters, the world lacks monitoring systems and specific agreements to govern the implementation of such approaches. This increases the threat, as the National Intelligence Council has warned, that a single country could launch a unilateral program sometime soon, with global effects and geopolitical ramifications.      

To ensure the world has the information it needs to evaluate these approaches, the Biden administration and Congress must launch an ambitious, well-funded national research program on reflecting sunlight to reduce climate risk. Such an initiative would build on recommendations issued last year by the U.S. National Academies, as well as direction already given to U.S. science agencies by Congress in the FY22 funding bill to develop a 5-year plan for research to support an assessment of near-term climate risks and solar climate intervention.         

This U.S.-led effort must be grounded in international cooperation. The United States should promote mechanisms for scientific collaboration, multilateral monitoring and assessment, and joint decision-making on any deployment of these techniques. The Montreal Protocol for Protection of the Ozone Layer, which is already reviewing the implications of sunlight in the stratosphere as part of its next Ozone Assessment, is a promising place to start. That convention’s universal membership and commitment to science-based decision-making have helped make it history’s most successful environmental treaty.                 

Although current global tensions will complicate diplomacy, we believe that a mutual vulnerability to climate change could create opportunities for collaboration that cut across traditional geopolitical and ideological lines, including between the United States and China and between advanced economies and developing ones. 

The ultimate solution to climate change is ending carbon emissions and removing carbon from the atmosphere. The dilemma for humanity is how to survive, much less thrive, during this transition. Sunlight reflection could be a bridge that offers safe passage to a sustainable future. To protect people and natural systems, we need to do the work to find out.

Council on Foreign Relations: Reflecting Sunlight to Reduce Climate Risk: Priorities for Research and International Cooperation

As you may have seen in the news, the U.N. Office for Disaster Risk Reduction’s recent global assessment report found that human activity is driving an increase in medium- to large-scale disasters, many of which are fueled by climate. These escalating impacts pose grave risks to all people, and particularly to the world’s most vulnerable communities.

In that context, yesterday The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a special report, Reflecting Sunlight to Reduce Climate Risks, describing the need for information and consideration of policy approaches to reducing climate risk through increasing the reflection of sunlight from particles and clouds in the atmosphere, or “solar climate intervention” (SCI), a more rapid response to reducing warming than most forms of mitigation or carbon removal.

The report by CFR Senior Fellow Stewart Patrick described the role SCI could play in reducing climate impacts on people and the environment and its potential to reduce the risks of major abrupt changes in natural systems (“tipping points”). It emphasized that concerns about sunlight reflection methods are often based on speculation and the importance of applying evidence to weigh the risks of interventions against the risks of climate change, versus considering them in isolation. (SilverLining Executive Director, Kelly Wanser, was part of the committee informing the report.)

The report emphasizes the importance of the role that SCI could play in extending the time available for scaling necessary emissions reduction, decarbonization, and adaptation. It describes SCI as a “potential fast-acting, low-cost, and high-leverage way to limit increasing global temperatures and their resulting effects.” Perhaps most importantly, the report urges that appropriate research be done to investigate all risks and possibilities and weigh them against the known dangers of climate change.

Such research requires a well-funded, well-coordinated U.S. national research program to carefully analyze the use of SCI as a way to reduce the harmful effects of climate change, and specifically, natural-system tipping points and their potential consequences, a position we have taken for many years at SilverLining.

Given the global nature of climate interventions, the report recommends the U.S. work hand-in-glove with other countries to coordinate research and develop mechanisms to govern any use of climate interventions. It highlights the fact that strong international cooperation is essential to global alignment and geopolitical security, an area that SilverLining actively advances through government and UN advocacy, our Safe Climate Research Initiative and our Global Youth Initiative. 

The report recommends that the Biden Administration launch a robust U.S. research effort “to better understand the feasibility, benefits, risks, and effects of solar climate intervention and support evidence-based decision-making about whether to include it in humanity’s portfolio of climate risk-management strategies.”

A potential U.S. research effort should:

• Deepen U.S. and global understanding of evolving climate threats to assess whether sunlight reflection methods could reduce these risks

• Evaluate possible dangers such interventions could pose for the environment, economy, society, and global security

• Apply principles that include evidence-based approaches to decision-making, weighing risks and uncertainties of sunlight reflection in the broader context of climate change

• Ensure transparency through information sharing

• Place international scientific collaboration among diverse governments and researchers at the forefront

The report finds that several hundred million dollars per year is necessary to support a U.S. research effort, and advises coordination across government agencies through the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Internationally, it posits that a global system of multilateral governance should be the ultimate goal, but that given the diversity and complexity of countries’ situations, the U.S. should be prepared for alternative approaches to cooperation.

Overall, CFR and Stewart Patrick have provided a highly valuable introduction to solar climate intervention and contribution to policy dialogue for this complex, but profoundly important, area. 

Council on Foreign Relations: The Growing Risk of Climate "Tipping Points" (Scientific Evidence and Policy Responses)

Kelly Wanser, SilverLining Executive Director, in conversation with Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter, and Stewart M. Patrick, James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program, Council on Foreign Relations.

As you may have seen in the news, recent studies indicate a heightened risk that major natural systems are approaching thresholds for rapid, potentially irreversible changes with catastrophic impacts on people and climate. These climate “tipping points” include the rapid dieback of the Amazon rainforest, abrupt melting of the Arctic permafrost precipitous collapse of polar ice sheets, large-scale coral reef die-offs, and the shift of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, a major driver of global weather.

The processes underlying many climate tipping points are hard to represent in climate models and under-presented in climate projections. This means that we have near-term catastrophic risks that we do not understand very well and are likely to be underestimating. Even if these risks are low, the enormous magnitude of their potential effects warrants far greater investment in information and preparation than we have today.

The current portfolio of responses to climate change centers on reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by reducing emissions or actively removing it. This is critical to the health of the climate system but acts on heat energy in the atmosphere relatively slowly. Even with very aggressive reduction and removal of carbon, society is many decades away from reducing the warming that is stressing natural and human systems, leaving us exposed to catastrophic tipping point risks in the near term.

What evidence is there of proximate tipping points and what options exist for understanding and managing their risks? I joined one of the world’s eminent experts on abrupt climate change, Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, and Stewart M. Patrick, James H. Binger Senior Fellow in Global Governance and Director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations, to explore these questions within the larger context of the climate crisis.

Our conversation included a review of the state of the science and some immediate steps that could be taken to analyze risks and identify early warning indicators. From a policy perspective, we began what we hope will be an ongoing public dialogue on tipping points in the context of disaster risk management. This included parallels drawn from efforts like NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office and the United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Watch the webinar to tune into our conversation or visit CFR.org to read the transcript.

Rapid Response Campaign for Observations of Tonga Volcano Emissions

Credits: NOAA, Universite de La Reunion

The recent eruption of the Hunga volcano in Tonga is a rare volcanic event in which material was projected high into the atmosphere in a way that serves as a natural experiment for understanding the primary processes and effects of material released into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).  

Some aspects of volcanic emissions can be observed from space, but there are important gaps in the ability of space-based instruments to observe and measure the composition of the volcanic plume and its evolution and dispersion in the atmosphere. Observations taken from within the atmosphere (“in-situ”) of the material emitted by the Tonga volcano are likely to help improve understanding of the effects of material introduced into the atmosphere not just by volcanoes, but also by aircraft traffic and rocket launches or with intentional interventions to reduce warming of climate.

The Earth Systems Research Laboratories (ESRL) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have developed instruments for taking such in-situ measurements, and, as part of a broader volcanic response plan with NASA, developed approaches to measuring volcanic events like this one.  Such observations are also part of the scientific mission of NOAA’s Earth’s Radiation Budget Program and the international Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC) research collaboration to understand the influence of particles (aerosols) on the atmosphere and climate 

The NOAA-led Tonga Rapid Response Experiment (TR2X) entails senior scientists releasing specialized balloons carrying sophisticated instruments for measuring gasses and particles to provide observations of the evolution of the volcanic plume in both the stratosphere and the lower atmosphere.  The balloons were launched and observations made from Maido Observatory on Reunion Island, which is in the path of the volcanic plume and includes an NDACC research station operated by the University of Reunion, which was located favorably downwind of the plume.

Credits: NOAA

Due to both geography and the specialized resources required, it is rare to be able to sample in situ a volcanic plume in its early stages (i.e., within days or weeks) even though this is extremely important to being able to understand its early evolution and simulate its effects.  

There are currently some limitations to the public programs in place to respond rapidly to observe volcanic plumes. In its work to accelerate research related to near-term climate risk and responses, non-profit organization SilverLining collaborated with scientists at NOAA, University of Houston, Universite de La Reunion, and elsewhere to mobilize the effort and support senior scientists and specialized equipment from outside the government in the NOAA-led campaign. 

“We are very grateful that SilverLining, with generous support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Grantham Foundation and Schmidt Futures could support collaborators in NOAA’s effort to capture information, for the world, on a rare natural experiment of importance to key questions in atmospheric and climate sciences,” states Alex Wong, Research Director of SilverLining, “the value of investment in understanding of Earth’s atmosphere is enormously high.”

The possibility of additional efforts to study the evolution of this substantial release into the atmosphere from balloons and/or aircraft is currently under evaluation.

The Hunga Tonga volcano response effort is part of SilverLining's Safe Climate Research Initiative. Learn more about these efforts here.

Collaborators:

• David Fahey, Director, NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory; Co-Chair, Scientific Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

• Troy Thornberry, Research Scientist. Atmospheric Composition & Chemical Processes, NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory

• Karen Rosenlof, Senior Scientist for Climate and Climate Change. Chemistry & Climate Processes, NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory

• RuShan Gao, Research Physicist, NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory

• *Elizabeth (Lizzy) Asher. Research Scientist II. Atmospheric Composition & Chemical Processes, NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory

• *Sergio L Alvarez, Researcher III, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston

• *Paul Walter, Associate Professor, St. Edward’s University, Austin

• James H Flynn, Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Houston

• *Stephanie Evans, Researcher, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique) based on Reunion Island

• *Jerome Brioude, Professor, Université de La Réunion

• Paul Newman, Chief Scientist for Earth Sciences, Goddard Space Flight Center 

• Sarah Doherty, Associate Professor and Atmospheric Scientist, University of Washington

• Alex Wong, Research Director, SilverLining

*Conducted research on site at Reunion Island

Youth Climate Leaders Talk on Climate Intervention

By Maddy Karlsberg Schaffer, Research Fellow at SilverLining

In the immediate aftermath of COP26, it was easy to feel dismayed about the outcome. Across the news and social media, there was a tangible sense of anger by many at the shortcomings within the new agreement. Language on coal had been watered down; effective funding for loss and damage was still yet to be seen. The lack of ambition – and justice – was clear. But amongst this heavy disappointment, I came away from those two weeks with a renewed sense of hope and a new-found drive.

The reason for that is on 10th November, I led a youth dialogue on research in climate intervention during an event hosted by SilverLining, held in partnership with three incredible youth organisations – Arab Youth Climate Movement Qatar, Green Africa Youth Organization and Sustenta Honduras. The event was hybrid, taking place at the University of Strathclyde’s Technology & Innovation Centre, right in the middle of the hustle and bustle of COP26 events in Glasgow.

During the event, climate intervention scientists Sarah Doherty (USA) and Jessica Medrado (Brazil) first presented the science of their research and took thoughtful questions from audience members, moderated by my co-host Aarushi Shah (India). Their expertise laid the groundwork for the second session, where I moderated the youth dialogue with a panel of young climate leaders. Those leaders were from the event’s partner organisations – Neeshad Shafi (Qatar), Joshua Amponsem (Ghana) and Ricardo Pineda Guzman (Honduras) – plus Béatrice Coroenne (France), who heads the YOUNGO TechMech working group, and with whom SilverLining collaborated for the Safe Climate Youth Summit that took place back in June this year. They shared with us their motivations for joining the climate intervention conversation, their perspectives on the Youth Call to Action on Climate Intervention, and discussed with the audience and SilverLining’s Executive Director Kelly Wanser some of the most difficult and hairy questions within climate intervention research and policy.

It was during this second session that we saw why it is so necessary to hold these kinds of conversations. The stories Neeshad, Josh and Ricardo shared on the realities of living in climate-vulnerable nations painted heartbreakingly raw and real pictures. Their knowledge and experiences gave us a stark reminder of what so many people across the world are facing: disaster, uncertainty and no sign of any of this slowing down.

Crucially, though, what their stories and contributions also did was help us understand that the questions surrounding climate intervention are not a projection into the future, but are a matter of here and now. And because of that, this is not a subject that we can afford to simply side-line. We need answers, and we need them urgently.

Research on climate intervention is not about “what-ifs” in 20, 30, 40 years’ time. This research will help inform us how many lives could potentially be saved in the near-term. The lives of people here with us on Earth today, already struggling with the impacts of the climate crisis, already dealing with the grim prospect of an ever-more dangerous climate. Those people and their communities - from parts of the world like Neeshad’s, Josh’s and Ricardo’s - deserve the justice of having more options – options that research could help to provide, that go alongside carbon drawdown and mitigation. As Ricardo eloquently explained during the panel, it isn’t a question of deployment today or tomorrow; it’s a question of getting more solutions to the table. Even if we find that it isn’t an option in the end, then at least we put as much thought as we could into it. Otherwise – as Béatrice insightfully added – we may find ourselves in the position where we not only lack options, but also lack sufficient knowledge and mechanisms to make informed decisions about climate intervention.

This conversation also indicated that, despite the fact we have a long way to go before we have sufficient research on these potential options, finally the ball seems to be rolling. Young people, especially those from Global South countries, are increasingly shaping the dialogue – something which has been sorely lacking within this area of climate change so far. This is of paramount importance, as it is their families, friends and futures that are most at stake.

With every new young voice, with every new story, we are better navigating how best to move forward (and reminded that it is young people who are going to lead us out of this crisis). This has unmeasurable worth for the climate intervention dialogue, which we might only really begin to recognise in years to come. This gives me optimism as we look to the future.

I hope, sincerely, as we move into 2022 that this momentum keeps pace, with more young people bringing an even greater diversity of perspectives into the debate. So with that – I invite anyone who can to watch the recording of the Intergenerational Dialogue on Research in Climate Intervention themselves. I would also like to thank once again all of our panelists for such a rich and moving conversation throughout the event. Of course, I also welcome my fellow youth to get in touch if you too would like to join the dialogue. My inbox is always open!

Sign up to SilverLining’s youth bulletin

Email Maddy at mkschaffer@silverlining.ngo

Follow or tweet Maddy at @madeleine_ks

Follow or tweet SilverLining at @SilverLiningNGO

SilverLining Statement On The Biden Administration’s Plan To Develop A Next-Generation Satellite Observing System At NASA To Help Understand And Track How Climate Change Is Impacting Communities

Statement of SilverLining’s Executive Director Kelly Wanser on the Biden Administration’s plan to develop a next-generation satellite observing system at NASA to help understand and track how climate change is impacting communities.

Photo courtesy of Christopher Michel

The recent announcement by President Biden is a promising step forward in the country’s preparedness to respond to near-term climate risks. 

Natural disasters have enormous short-term costs and often produce long-term losses such as industrial and geographical shifts, misplaced investments, and failed recovery. The human cost is harder to measure, but staggering, both in terms of direct suffering and loss of life. Our inability to better understand and prepare for these risks has led to increased anxiety and lack of confidence experienced by broad swaths of the public.

Modernizing and expanding U.S. infrastructure for observation of climate and weather to help government, communities, and businesses prepare for as well as better respond to weather and climate-related natural disasters is one of the highest return areas of investment available in federal spending. Even incremental improvements in weather and climate forecasts and predictions can result in better preparations, investments, and policies that save countless lives, livelihoods, and dollars.

Satellites are an extraordinary tool for broad observation of the planet, particularly those things that can be observed in visible, and related, spectrums of light from space. There are, however, critical features of the atmosphere and surface that are hard, and even impossible, to capture from satellites in space, including the specific concentrations and distribution of gases and particles in the atmosphere that are critical to improving weather and climate predictions. Clouds also interfere with satellite observations. And from above, the vertical position of atmospheric content often cannot be adequately ascertained. This means that satellite observations can provide only part of the data that is needed for managing weather and climate-related risks and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from the full range of human and natural sources.

In order to reach the Biden Administration's goal of improving the nation’s ability to predict and respond to climate-linked natural disasters, the Administration and Congress should consider key investments in surface and aerial observation infrastructure. These include a network of instruments for measuring greenhouse gases and particles from commercial aircraft, unmanned remote platforms for measuring remote regions of the stratosphere, coverage of key areas of the ocean surface for atmospheric monitoring and the expansion of sophisticated ground stations. Some of these investments may be part of an overall NASA effort, while others are part of highly successful, but under-invested efforts in agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

These expanded capabilities would serve the dual purpose of improving our ability to respond to climate change, well beyond the threshold of capability of satellite observations alone, and of fully realizing the value of climate-related satellite investments.

If you're interested, you can read SilverLining's full discussion on these critical, related investments here.

Perspectives On The U.S. National Academy of Sciences' Report Recommending a Federal Research Program on Sunlight Reflection Strategies to Cool Earth

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences recently published a new report, "Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth," in which it recommended a robust, interdisciplinary, multi-agency research program for the United States alongside cooperative international efforts. Following the report's publication, scientific experts, policymakers, and other stakeholders shared commentary on climate risk, climate justice, the need for this research, the importance of the report, and the details of the proposed NAS framework to pursue a robust research agenda on solar climate intervention. Here is a sampling of what they said.  

"While climate mitigation is essential, as the National Academy of Sciences report details, it is also critical that we conduct the research needed to fully understand the scope of near-term climate response tools that may be helpful to ensure a safe climate for all." 

— Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA-9) (Press Release, 3/25/21)

"America needs to be on the cutting edge of climate research. More knowledge is always better." 

— Rep. John Curtis (R-UT-3) (New York Times, 3/25/21)

"Innovative solutions that can help accomplish this [climate crisis] should be looked into and studied." 

— Vedant Patel, White House spokesperson (New York Times, 3/25/21)

"It is very well thought out, without any preconceived notions, and a very timely and prudent approach. The critical unknown issues have been identified, and more importantly, emphasis has been put on the crucial need for mitigation and adaptation at the same time." 

— Youba Sokona, a climate scientist from Mali and the vice chair of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (HuffPost, 3/25/21)

"A great deal more research is needed to understand the risks and benefits of climate interventions." 

— Sarah Doherty, atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington and program director of the Marine Cloud Brightening Project (Science, 3/25/21)

“It is not so much playing with fire as it is researching fire, so that we understand it well enough to deploy, if necessary....Sometimes you have to examine very risky options when the stakes are as high as they are with climate change.″ 

— Waleed Abdalati, former NASA chief scientist (Associated Press, 3/25/21)

"The US solar geoengineering research programme should be all about helping society make more informed decisions." 

— Chris Field, climate scientist at Stanford University and lead author of the NAS report (The Guardian 3/25/21)

"It's important to understand the full suite of responses to climate change, given how close we are to catastrophic risks."

 — Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and NAS report committee member (Reuters, 3/25/21) 

"Solar geoengineering is a last-ditch, Hail Mary, to counter unacceptable climate warming. No team plans to be down 7 points in the 4th quarter with 10 seconds on the clock and 50 yards to go, but teams practice the Hail Mary just in case. " 

— Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences (Twitter, 3/25/21)

Summary Of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Report On Developing A Research Agenda And Examining Governance Approaches For Climate Intervention

(click to view a factsheet on the report)

On March 25, 2021, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) published Developing a Research Agenda and Research Governance Approaches for Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth, a long-awaited report that SilverLining played a role in bringing to bear. You can read SilverLining's statement on the report here.

The report follows a 2015 NASEM study on climate intervention, which found that methods for increasing the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere were the most promising options to rapidly reduce warming in climate, and concluded more research was necessary. The new report was released shortly after a broader report on the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), recommending a reprioritization of U.S. climate research to prepare for and avoid urgent climate risks to the security and well-being of Americans, all the while protecting vulnerable communities.

Report Summary

The NASEM report highlighted the following conclusions and recommendations:

1. The urgency of climate change requires a full scientific understanding of possible options to respond. Therefore, the U.S. should establish a multidisciplinary, coordinated, and well-resourced research program on solar climate interventions, with a budget of $100-200 million over five years.

2. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) should be the entity responsible for coordinating research across federal agencies and with research programs outside the United States as part of its mission to advance understanding of effective options for managing urgent climate change risks at all scales, from local to international.

Specifically, NASEM recommends that the USGCRP should facilitate the development of complementary research activities among federal agencies according to existing scientific capabilities and foster relationships and knowledge-sharing across disciplines. The USGCRP should also ensure oversight and transparency, particularly of outdoor experimentation, and support and inform the future development of international governance.

NASEM recommends that the USGCRP-led climate intervention research program should research the following three areas:

• Context and goals for climate intervention research, which will require research to explore future conditions and persistent uncertainties that will affect decision-making on climate intervention, as well as designing strategies to maximize the prospects for broadly beneficial outcomes. This includes building the capacity of countries to engage in climate intervention research and informed decision-making.

NASEM affirms that climate intervention research should promote international cooperation, especially with researchers from the Global South. The report highlights the work of the Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for Solar Radiation Management (DECIMALS) fund as an example of programs that should receive increased investment. The DECIMALS fund at the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) is an inaugural grantee of SilverLining's Safe Climate Research Initiative (SCRI).

• Impacts and technical dimensions, such as studying the technical properties of reflective particles and their interactions with atmospheric processes, researching climate impacts and coupled ecological and human systems, and the technology development and systems design needed for conducting and observing research.

NASEM recommends $100-200 million in funding over five years to study topics related to stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). These topics are three promising solar climate intervention strategies, but must be integrated into a much larger systems-based research effort within the USGCRP to understand the complex interactions and options among mitigation, adaptation, solar climate intervention, and strategies to address other societal priorities.

• Social dimensions, including research developing effective governance, informing ethical considerations, studying public perceptions and engagement, and exploring the dynamics of international cooperation.

The NASEM recommendations on the social dimensions of climate intervention research reinforce the overall recommendations to the USGCRP to prioritize efforts to be inclusive and representative, and to prioritize justice via research that highlights consequences and opportunities for underserved communities. The social dimension research also promotes USGCRP guidance for increasing the usability and relevance of research by adopting a co-production process to researchers with stakeholders and decision-makers, as well as recommitting to a sustained assessment process. These features are critical aspects for providing society the information needed to understand the potential for climate interventions to protect the safety of human and natural systems, within the next five years.

The U.S. National Academy Of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Recommends A Federal Research Program On Climate Intervention Strategies That Reflect Sunlight To Cool Earth: What Does It Mean?

Source: Christopher Michel

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director, SilverLining, and Alex Wong, Research Director, SilverLining

In our escalating climate emergency, research on approaches that influence natural processes to rapidly reduce greenhouse gases or warming in the atmosphere (sometimes called "climate intervention" or "geoengineering") has become more important, perhaps critically so. Climate impacts, already catastrophic to many communities, are projected to increase in the next 30-40 years, a period in which no amount of emissions reductions can significantly affect warming. (1)

The impacts of climate change disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in society, making research on options to improve their near-term safety critical for climate justice. As impacts grow, climate intervention research and weather modification activities—such as cloud seeding programs in China—are also growing around the world, making them important areas of international cooperation and global security. 

SilverLining is a longtime advocate for research on near-term climate risks and interventions to protect people and natural systems while society transitions to a sustainable future. For the past several years, we have been a driving force behind efforts to launch a U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) study to develop an agenda and governance for research on climate interventions that increase the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere to cool climate, or "solar climate intervention" (SCI). The NASEM recently published this report, which recommended a robust, interdisciplinary, multi-agency research program for the United States, alongside cooperative international efforts. 

A great deal of research is needed to equip policymakers, stakeholders, and society with the ability to assess the risks and benefits of SCI. The NASEM report takes an important step forward by outlining a framework to pursue this research in the U.S., which historically has been the leading provider of climate and weather data, models, and scientific support to the rest of the world. 

SilverLining strongly endorses the two main recommendations of the NASEM report:

1. The urgency of climate change requires a full scientific understanding of possible options to respond. Therefore, the U.S. should establish an interdisciplinary, multi-agency research program on solar climate intervention (geoengineering).

2. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) should be the entity responsible for coordinating research across federal agencies and with research outside the United States, as part of an overall mission to advance understanding of effective options for managing urgent climate change risks from local to international scales.

Climate projections currently include catastrophic effects on people and ecosystems that are not addressed by the existing portfolio of options to slow warming. The U.S. leads the world in the scientific and technological capabilities required to explore and assess additional options. The recommendation to establish a broad, ambitious, and responsible research program in the U.S. is both groundbreaking and crucial. Such a program offers the potential to provide the world with open information and tools to support objective, science-based evaluation, dialogue, and decision-making about possibilities with unusual promise for near-term protection, as well uncertain and potentially unacceptable risks. 

This research will be most successful if it is well-coordinated. In the U.S., there are 13 agencies with a significant role in climate research, which since 1990 have coordinated their efforts under the USGCRP (you may know it as the body that produces the U.S. National Climate Assessment). For years, SilverLining has recommended that U.S. federal agencies work together to research climate interventions, and we endorse the recommendation to coordinate their efforts through the successful structure of the USGCRP.

The NASEM recommends that the USGCRP-coordinated solar climate intervention research program  include research in three areas:

1. Context and goals for climate intervention research, developing a research agenda to explore future conditions and uncertainties that will affect decision-making, designing strategies to maximize the prospects for broadly beneficial outcomes and building capacity for exploration of these topics by stakeholders around the world. 

2. Impacts and technical dimensions, research and development in areas such as properties of reflective particles and their interactions with atmospheric processes, climate impacts and ecological and human systems outcomes, and monitoring and other technologies for observing the earth system.

3. Social dimensions, including equity, effective governance, ethical considerations, public perceptions and engagement, and the dynamics of international cooperation. 

We endorse these areas of emphasis. SCI research is applied research aimed at understanding potential real-world outcomes against a time-sensitive problem in a highly complex system. It requires a mission-oriented research agenda that spans physical sciences technology and human dimensions.

However, SCI approaches are just one potential element of a broader portfolio of responses to climate change. Evaluating and developing this portfolio requires a national research effort aimed at assessing interventions including, but not limited to, SCI, and understanding the possibilities and limitations among mitigation, adaptation, and interventions to manage climate risk. 

The NASEM report on reflecting sunlight followed a separate NASEM report on the future direction for the USGCRP. That report recommended realigning U.S. climate research efforts to focus on managing climate risk in service of the security and well-being of Americans and with concern for equity and justice. Climate interventions sit within a broader context for climate risk management, and it will be important to synthesize these efforts. We believe that an interagency research program (such as the USGCRP) that includes SCI should also include near-term climate risk management and research and assessment of other interventions that leverage earth system processes (e.g., ocean fertilization, afforestation) to reduce greenhouse gases and warming.

The NASEM report recommends $100-200 million in funding over five years to study topics related to three prominent approaches to increasing the reflection of sunlight in the atmosphere: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). 

We applaud the NASEM committee for recommending a robust level of funding for research. Is that amount enough to understand the feasibility and risks of these approaches in 5 years? No, but it is a healthy start. A concerted study of the materials, processes, and specific earth system responses for even narrowly defined SCI scope of research is likely to require more funding. In the near-term, philanthropy may play an important role in supporting early critical work, as we have seen in the efforts of SilverLining’s Safe Climate Research Initiative (SCRI).

The natural system processes underlying SCI approaches are central aspects of climate and atmosphere, specifically the effects of particles (aerosols) on clouds, climate, and atmospheric chemistry. Understanding SCI approaches is intimately tied to important areas of climate and atmospheric science and also requires investment in climate models, observations, and basic science.

SilverLining was an early advocate for U.S. federal funding for basic science related to SCI. We helped advance funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for research in understanding the effects of aerosols from various sources (natural, industrial, and interventional) on Earth's reflectivity, climate, and the chemistry of the stratosphere. Similarly, we have helped advance funding in the U.S. Department of Energy for cloud-aerosol research and related climate modeling, with applications for understanding weather, climate risks, and climate interventions. Much more is needed for each of the relevant agencies in the U.S. to pursue related efforts such as understanding the natural system, the influence of industrial emissions on atmospheric sunlight reflection and climate, and SCI.

The total U.S. budget for climate research is approximately $2.6 billion annually—a small fraction of the cost of one climate-linked extreme fire or powerful storm. Furthermore, the climate research budget has been relatively flat for decades. When the climate was changing slowly and therefore more predictably, this may have made sense, but we have entered a phase where even small improvements in understanding and predicting climate are immensely valuable. With respect to SCI, major investment in climate models, observations, and scientific research is imperative to understand and weigh the dangers of warming with the risks of intervention.  

The NASEM report recommends small-scale outdoor release experiments to provide "information that is qualitatively different from that of existing modes of research."

The NASEM study describes the role of small-scale experiments that release relevant materials as providing  information on small-scale processes that is essential to modeling effects that would occur at larger scales. Small-scale experiments provide information that cannot be gained in any other way and help avoid experiments at larger scales. These experiments are often of concern and can be misunderstood, and it is important to ensure they are governed in the interests of society. Small-scale atmospheric release experiments are also not new—they sit within a framework of existing laws, regulations, and federal science processes. As with the research program itself, governance for SCI experiments and other research requires integration with related areas of science. The good news is that robust mechanisms for scientific review, environmental and public safety, and public engagement exist in these areas, and a federal research program is itself a major step forward in governance.  

The NASEM report states that climate intervention research should promote international cooperation, especially with stakeholders from the Global South. The report highlights the work of the Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for Solar Radiation Management (DECIMALS) fund as an example of Global South research that should receive increased investment.

We wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation to promote international cooperation in SCI research and the emphasis on stakeholders from the Global South. SilverLining published a series of papers by leading international climate law experts on the role of research and scientific cooperation in effective international decision-making. SilverLining is also proud to support SRMGI DECIMALS program (part of the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative), which sponsors researchers in the Global South—encompassing areas of the world that often experience the greatest impacts of climate change—to study the benefits and risks of SCI for their regions.

Addressing near-term climate risk is a profoundly important part of an effective overall climate strategy for both the U.S. and the world. The Biden-Harris administration has committed to prioritizing climate issues, making climate a part of all areas of government policy and placing climate research first in the list of priorities for federal research investment. As the administration pursues efforts to decarbonize and increase investment in climate-centric policy, the SCI research agenda proposed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will complement its efforts, arming policymakers with the scientific knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on these potential near-term options for ensuring a safe climate.

—

(1) Samset, B. H. … Lund, M. T. (2020). Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nature Communications, 11(1), 3261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17001-1

SilverLining Statement On The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine' Report On Developing A Research Agenda And Examining Governance Approaches For Climate Intervention Strategies

Today, SilverLining issued the following statement on the release of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report on developing a research agenda and researching governance approaches for climate intervention strategies that reflect sunlight to cool Earth.

"The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's new report on reflecting sunlight lays out a robust research agenda for studying the risks and benefits of increasing the reflection of sunlight to reduce the impacts of climate change on people and natural systems while society reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It's a major step forward to have experts from many disciplines come together and endorse research in this field. As the report suggests, we will only be able to address the problem of a rapidly warming planet and the impacts on the world's most vulnerable communities with strong scientific information to support international cooperation and governance."

SilverLining Executive Director Kelly Wanser has played a leading role in advancing research and dialogue on options for addressing near-term climate risks for many years, and was active in support of NAS efforts to undertake this study. SilverLining applauds NASEM, the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (BASC), and the study’s committee members for their hard work on this complex and important topic.

Advancing a research agenda for interventions to slow Earth's warming is critically important because climate impacts are projected to escalate in the next 30-40 years, a period in which no level of emissions reductions can significantly reduce warming. These impacts disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, making research in this area an important aspect of climate justice. Weather and climate intervention activities are also emerging in various parts of the world, making the analysis of risks and scientific cooperation important for national and global security. 

A great deal of research is needed to provide policymakers and society with the ability to assess the risks and benefits of reflecting sunlight to cool climate. The NASEM report takes an important step forward in outlining a framework to pursue this research, including critical elements such as interagency coordination and international scientific cooperation.

These findings come at a time when the Biden-Harris administration has already committed to aggressive action on climate and climate justice. As the administration pursues efforts to decarbonize, the research agenda proposed by the NAS report will complement its efforts by helping to explore an expanded range of options, including sunlight reflection strategies, that might help protect people and ecosystems from harm.  

About SilverLining

SilverLining is a non-profit 501c(3) organization dedicated to ensuring a safe climate. Our mission is to prevent human suffering and sustain natural systems in the context of uncertain risks of near-term catastrophic climate change. To achieve this mission, SilverLining advances effective U.S. and international policy and drives improvements in capabilities for predicting climate and research in interventions to reduce warming. As part of these efforts, SilverLining engages with researchers, policymakers, philanthropists, advocates, technologists, and people from all walks of life.

Takeaways From The National Academy of Sciences Recommendations For USGCRP

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director, SilverLining

This week, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Math (NASEM) released an important report on the path forward for climate research in the United States, "Global Change Research Needs and Opportunities for 2022-2031." The report advises the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP)—a coordinating body which comprises 13 federal agencies that study and respond to global climate change—on how the nation should adjust and expand its climate research agenda. My takeaways:

1. Research on global climate change is evolving, and traditional climate research is not fully meeting decision-makers' needs: We require new approaches to studying complex physical risks of climate change, and we must also incorporate the interplay between human and natural systems. The NASEM notes we need to move into researching how to manage risks that climate change poses to human-natural systems, and that our nation requires a USGCRP commensurate with the scope, scale, and urgency of climate change. I'll add that research and risk management must focus more specifically on the near-term 30-40 year horizon when no amount of mitigation can reduce warming and include the assessment of climate interventions as possibilities for protecting people and natural systems while we reduce greenhouse gases.

2. Cross-cutting research is needed to support climate risk management: Importantly, the NASEM advises that new approaches to risk management are required that can better address complex natural and human systems dynamics. For example, the report recommends expanded research on weather extremes, climate thresholds, and climate tipping points where climate change may escalate rapidly and move beyond the reach of humans' ability to respond. SilverLining fully supports this recommendation, as indications that we are nearing climate tipping points are rising.  The NASEM also strongly advises an increased focus on equity and social justice within climate research. It recommends a robust effort to build research capacity and skills among underrepresented groups, so they become trusted messengers to their communities. We could not agree more. At SilverLining, we believe that climate research and diverse participation in research—especially on a full range of potential responses —is vital to protecting society's most vulnerable communities. 

3. The goal of climate research is managing risk to ensure a safer future: Climate response must center on human life and health and an environment that sustains human life and health in the future. This translates to a significant paradigm shift to more applied, mission-oriented approach to climate research than in the past. Such an approach will require greater participation of federal mission agencies that historically have not participated in USGCRP, such as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its components, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Overall, the NASEM recommends that the USGCRP needs significant expansion in scope and funding, which we strongly endorse as a critical investment in human safety that is essential to protect our natural systems. We agree with the NASEM that the USGCRP should be bold in crafting its new strategic plan, which is an opportunity to prepare society to create a safer, more resilient future.

Youth Voices Are Critical To The Climate Dialogue

By Madeleine Karlsberg Schaffer, Research Fellow, SilverLining

Many people make appeals for climate action based on the welfare of their "future grandchildren." While powerful, the allusion to distant generations can be misleading—climate change is already shaping the lives of today's young people.

When discussing climate change, policymakers and CEOs often benchmark goals for 2050. But 2050 may be an optimistic timeline; scientists project a potential tipping point for catastrophic and irreversible warming as soon as 2030. The worst climate impacts could fall not simply on a distant set of grandchildren, but also on my generation.

Current decision-makers are at least a generation removed from feeling the most severe effects of climate change. Yet, young people have been largely excluded from the topic's dialogue thus far. This has to change. Specifically, we need youth voices in the discussion on near-term responses to climate change because "near-term" means our twenties, thirties, and forties. And beyond discussions, we need youth represented in decision-making. We have the right to take ownership of our futures.

Moreover, many youth climate activists focus their work on reducing carbon emissions. I fully support this purpose, and applaud their efforts; I too have been an active part of emissions reduction movements since I was in high school. However, the reality is that achieving net-zero carbon emissions won't solve the problem. Net-zero will only mean we've stopped making the problem worse. In truth, we will still have to deal with increasing warming for some time to come, and the devastating consequences of that. We therefore need to consider some shorter-term avenues—but we don't know yet how these could take effect. In order to know, we have to invest in researching them. 

I'm humbled to be working as a research fellow with SilverLining to advocate for research into near-term climate options and work with young people committed to the climate cause. Recently, SilverLining launched a Youth Initiative to amplify young voices in the climate intervention research and policymaking arenas. With this, we're building an international coalition of young climate leaders interested in the dialogue on near-term climate risks and the promises, risks, and challenges of potential climate interventions. Our focus is global and will highlight the work and experiences of young leaders from areas hit hardest by climate impacts. To help us, we're working with partners like the YOUNGO TechMech Working Group, part of the youth constituency of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. Needless to say, so far I have been incredibly inspired by my peers from around the world and encouraged by the far-reaching nature of our efforts.

When it comes to climate intervention research itself, the paper led by SRMGI's Dr. Romaric C. Odoulami is the kind of science where we need young people's input. Dr. Odoulami and his team investigated potential responses to a "Day Zero" water crisis in Cape Town, South Africa, finding that solar climate intervention could lower the risk of future Day Zero level droughts in Cape Town by 90%. While this is an early study, it indicates that short-term climate responses could protect some vulnerable communities from the dangerous impacts of warming. In addition, it highlights that climate intervention research, undertaken by local experts, might provide a pathway to more equitable decision-making and climate justice. It is therefore crucial that young people, especially those from places like Cape Town that are more susceptible to severe climate impacts, have the chance to choose how to move forward with such information. 

In any case, what we do know is evident. Youth need to be at the forefront of policy and research on climate change and short-term response options, and I encourage my peers to lobby their government and elected officials for greater climate research as much as they do for emissions mitigation. Alongside our lived experiences as young people growing up in a warming world, we must equip ourselves with scientific knowledge to determine the best ways to take action—and ultimately, help ensure the maximum safety of our futures.

We'd be proud if you decided to join us by subscribing to SilverLining's Youth newsletter.  

Biden Administration Nominees Need to Tell Congress How They Will Handle Near-Term Climate Risk

Photo: J. Scott Applewhite at the Associated Press

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director, SilverLining

The Biden administration has emphasized its intention to address climate change across federal agencies via transparent, science-based decision-making. This type of cross-sectoral effort is precisely what is required to tackle what is now a climate emergency. As Congress works through the vetting process of those nominated to fill positions at the agencies central to this effort, namely the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of State, Department of Energy, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, lawmakers must elevate in their dialogue with nominees the issue of how the Administration plans to handle near-term climate risk.

Climate extremes are having an impact now on vulnerable people and ecosystems and recognition of that reality is growing every day. We also must begin to face another important reality; reducing emissions, even all the way to zero, will not affect warming in the next 30-40 years. If we are going to protect people and sustain natural systems during this time, then we need to explore temporary ways of keeping the climate stable that can support, rather than conflict with, efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses. 

As an organization focused on near-term climate risk, SilverLining believes there are important issues that Congress should raise with Administration nominees as part of this process, such as the need for a task force to assess and manage near-term climate risk; the role of federally funded research into potential near-term climate interventions; the national security implications of climate change; and, the specific impacts on vulnerable communities.

Specifically, we offer five key questions that Senators should ask these nominees to answer in order to ensure that the Administration places appropriate priority on addressing the near-term climate risks as part of their overarching strategy to combat climate change.

Question: Warming has now reached dangerous levels, with catastrophic extremes causing enormous economic damage and rising loss of life. Scientists also report that major natural systems are approaching "tipping points" that could accelerate climate change. Yet no amount of emissions reduction can affect warming in the next 30-40 years, leaving a critical near-term gap in safety. How will you consider and address this near-term climate risk, including potential 'tipping points'? 

Background: The climate is changing rapidly due to warming in the atmosphere, with increased impact on people and ecosystems around the world. Like the human body running a fever, some systems can adjust to increased heat, but, as temperatures rise, some will reach tipping points—sustaining damage that is severe and irreversible.

While emissions reductions are essential to preventing further warming, even the most aggressive reduction or removal efforts will likely not have a significant near-term impact on the climate, exposing natural systems and humans to an unacceptable level of near-term risk. Scientists predict it will take at least a decade to research and develop the knowledge we need to assess the feasibility of potential rapid climate response tools—like climate interventions—so it is critical we pursue it now. 

Question: Will you support federally funded research into potential near-term climate interventions, including a comprehensive assessment within the next five years?

Background: The National Academy of Sciences has found one of the most promising ways to reduce warming within a few years is based on one of the ways nature can cool the Earth—increasing the reflection of sunlight from clouds and particles (aerosols) in the atmosphere ("solar climate intervention"). But we need much more research to determine whether and how such interventions could be undertaken safely and effectively.

U.S. federal funding for climate research hasn't increased in decades, even as climate health has dramatically deteriorated. At about $2.6 billion annually, climate research is drastically underfunded relative to the magnitude of the problem and the value of better information. The need to understand our climate response options is urgent. We need a comprehensive assessment of potential near-term climate interventions within the timeframe of this administration. 

Question: How will you work to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of research and approach climate information-sharing and accessibility of climate models, data sets, and computing between agencies both domestically and internationally?

Background: The United States has the capabilities and resources that make it both possible and imperative that our nation lead the global effort to understand and respond to our changing climate. As SilverLining has outlined in its recommendations to the Biden administration, U.S. leadership could propel the international community to move quickly toward progress

Coordination between international bodies on the potential implementation of climate interventions will require close collaboration and global alignment. The administration should call on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to hold an expert meeting on near-term abrupt change risks and rapid climate interventions, as well as issue a Special Report on the topic. The Biden administration should also support current and future assessment of solar climate intervention by the Montreal Protocol.

Question: How will your agency prioritize the effects of climate change on society's most vulnerable, within and outside of the U.S.?

Background: Climate change has already caused substantial suffering in many parts of the U.S. and around the world. The gaps in our ability to predict near-term impacts and abrupt changes, as well as the gaps in our options to address them, pose imminent threats to the most vulnerable members of society. Families with lower incomes and communities of color often have no choice but to live in areas vulnerable to the worst impacts of climate change—increasingly frequent and alarmingly deadly hurricanes, heat waves, drought, flooding, disease, and food insecurity—all of which can and does lead to displacement or death. 

Current climate models project warming based on emissions scenarios in 2050. If we do not find tools to reduce impacts of warming, remediate its harms, or ensure protection from the abrupt changes it causes before then, scientists predict climate impacts will lead to tens of millions of more deaths, a billion or more people displaced, and unspeakable suffering. 

Climate change increasingly impacts all facets of human life, including public health, national defense, and social justice. SilverLining supports the new administration in its commitment to align federal agencies to understand and fight climate change. We urge leaders to recognize the threats near-term impacts of climate change pose to our safety and invest in researching a portfolio of tools to rapidly respond to warming.

Question: Do you agree that climate change is a threat to national security and must be assessed strategically by your agency as such? Would you support significantly expanding climate and weather observation and prediction capabilities in order to secure infrastructure, fortify operations, and support readiness, including increased collaboration with civilian agencies?

Background: Climate impacts pose substantial threats to global security by increasing instability in vulnerable countries, promoting conflict over scarce resources, and opening new theaters of operation, such as the Arctic. They also pose direct threats to national security in terms of military infrastructure and operational readiness. As climate impacts increase, nations including China, India, some developing countries, and some European nations are beginning to invest in forms of weather modification and solar climate intervention.

Meanwhile, the U.S. lacks sufficient information to inform policy decisions about whether to cooperate in these activities or work to constrain them. This information gap leaves the U.S. unable to assess and respond to climatic and geostrategic developments. Better information and improved scientific understanding will likely reduce tensions and support cooperative decision-making in these areas. We must research an available portfolio of measures that arrest or rapidly reduce warming if we are to ensure global and regional security and sustain national strategic infrastructure and assets.

SilverLining looks forward to working with policymakers to prioritize climate risk, investment in scientific research, and options to directly reduce warming in the near-term. We've outlined specific recommendations to drive forward international cooperation, national security, and domestic climate policy. With a new administration comes new opportunities to combat Earth's warming and secure a safe climate for our future generations.  

What Bill Gates Has to Say About Climate Intervention In His New Book: "How To Avoid A Climate Disaster"

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director, SilverLining

As I was reading through Bill Gates' new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, over the past week, I was encouraged by his interest in the potential of climate intervention as means to address near-term climate risks, avoid a major climate catastrophe, and protect vulnerable populations worldwide. It was heartening to see Gates—a longtime advocate for sustainability and the environment—recognize the need for research and offer his impressions of the benefits, risks, and obstacles that face our field.

For those who haven't yet read his book, Gates outlines climate intervention as a potential solution to one of our biggest unknown worries about climate—the potential for "tipping points," moments where the gradual effects of climate change cause unexpected, catastrophic, and potentially irreversible chain reactions. One of the central imperatives behind SilverLining's research and work is exactly that: finding safe, evidence-based solutions that would prevent our planet from reaching these tipping points and protecting the vulnerable populations that would be disproportionately affected by such sudden, volatile changes to the environment. 

Gates is also correct in noting that climate intervention techniques are not "intended to absolve us of the responsibility to reduce emissions; they'd just buy us time to get our act together," as he puts it. 

I agree—climate intervention, as we see it, is not a long-term solution to the climate crisis, but rather designed to minimize the near-term effects of climate change, while more expansive endeavors to limit our impact on climate change are implemented across the globe.

Ever the pragmatist, Gates also identifies some of the key challenges facing the implementation of climate intervention that we at SilverLining think about every day, such as governance issues and the need for continued research. There is perhaps no more clear shared resource than our atmosphere, which is why SilverLining insists that the backbone of any serious climate intervention endeavor must be international cooperation. Additionally, no serious, large-scale attempt at climate intervention should go forward without rigorous research and identification of the potential costs and benefits of such work.

This focus on the challenges of research, cooperation, and innovation all point to what our field desperately needs: resources. We are grateful for Gates' support of our field, and we need more individuals, organizations, and governments who are concerned about our escalating climate emergency to support and invest in our field of study. Research is the key to solving the issues of feasibility, impact, and governance that currently exist in our field, and no group can achieve that research without the investment and support required to make it possible. 

We at SilverLining hope that Bill Gates' recognition of our critical work encourages others, regardless of background or prior knowledge of climate intervention, to do more of their own research to better understand the potential of climate intervention to ensure a safe climate. 

Why 'Climate Intervention' Is the Right Term for the Most Dramatic Response to Climate Change

By Kelly Wanser, Executive Director, SilverLining

Based on anecdotal evidence from our work with people from all walks of life, we have experienced that language — specific terms — has a great effect on the nature of the dialogue on climate. As a matter of both effective policy and social justice, when it comes to scientific or technical areas with implications for all people, we need to use language that is both accessible and accurate. We need to find ways of communicating complex ideas that illuminate, rather than mask, their meaning. Scientific and technical jargon can be both confusing and alienating, which is why policymakers generally opt for language that is clear but still rigorous in its foundational meaning.

These principles are profoundly important with respect to the complex and controversial topic of approaches to directly influencing climate to reduce warming, sometimes known as ‘climate intervention,’ or ‘geoengineering.’ More recently, less accurate and more aspirational terms like ‘climate restoration’ or ‘climate repair’ have been used.

Since it was coined in the 1960s, ‘geoengineering’ has been the predominant term used by the small group of scientists and enthusiasts in what has been, until recently, a very small expert community. As climate change progressed, and the field grew to include major scientific assessments, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reviewed this terminology as part of a pair of 2015 reports on the topic. They arrived at the term ‘climate intervention’ as a more accurate expression of the nature of the activity. Their reasons included that ‘engineering’ implied a level of control, which is not a feature of these approaches, and that the work involved in these approaches is not primarily engineering, but earth systems science. (In the latter, the ‘geoengineering’ term contributes to significant misunderstanding). Importantly, as we found later, ‘geoengineering’ also does not communicate any relationship to climate.

My organization, SilverLining, is ‘science-led,’ meaning that we follow the guidance of the scientific community, and look to promote ideas and language that are accessible across a wide range of audiences, yet compatible with scientific accuracy and integrity. We look to scientific assessments and to our partners and collaborators in leadership roles in the scientific community for guidance on what is acceptable. It also means that we avoid language that might overstate claims, including positive or negative associations that are not substantiated by science. Thus, we follow the lead of scientists who do not support ‘climate repair,’ ‘climate restoration,’ or ‘climate management’ for these approaches, which can imply an effectiveness that is not established. Similarly, we do not support language that implies negative effects that are not likely — this includes ‘sun dimming’ or ‘solar shading,’ as changes in the strength of visible light are not anticipated in mainline proposals for these approaches.

We have found that one of the most helpful metaphors in understanding the complex dynamics of climate change is that of a fever in the human body. The human body includes complex systems dynamics like the earth system: non-linear changes, compounding effects from stressors and uncertain outcomes from both negative health events and their treatments. As with medical interventions, climate interventions are uncertain, and they are not a cure, but part of a portfolio of patient care — often the part that keeps the patient stable for longer-term treatments to take effect.

Since the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2015 report on the topic, ‘geoengineering’ and ‘climate intervention’ have often been used interchangeably. The older term, ‘geoengineering,’ has historically been used in literature and media, primarily by subject matter experts and enthusiasts. After ‘climate intervention’ was introduced in 2015 by the NAS, its use has been concentrated in U.S. science agencies, the U.S. Congress, policymakers, certain nonprofits, and some recent literature and media.

The adoption of ‘climate intervention’ in the U.S. policy community has been very helpful to constructive policy dialogue and balanced consideration of research in the field. It has also promoted more inclusive dialogue through its ability to communicate meaning to non-experts with less confusion.

As we work towards ensuring a safe climate for all, it is imperative that we use language that is accessible and accurate with the people we aim to protect. The terms and phrases we use to describe our work drive the way in which people understand and relate to the topic, which is essential for inclusive dialogue and effective decision-making.

With this in mind, SilverLining set out to better understand the comprehension and reaction to the two most commonly used terms for approaches to directly influence the Earth’s climate to reduce global warming, ‘geoengineering’ and ‘climate intervention,’ by members of the public. To do this, SilverLining commissioned a nationally representative survey led by survey research experts Patrick Ruffini and Eleanor O’Neil at Echelon Insights. The national survey was composed of 1,006 registered voters in the 2020 likely electorate and fielded from October 16–22, 2020.

Results from the survey suggest that ‘climate intervention’ may be the preferable term for approaches to directly reducing Earth’s warming because of better comprehension, reduced confusion, and more neutral perceptions of safety. Respondents expressed more familiarity with the term ‘climate intervention’ and better understood its meaning. However, most respondents were unfamiliar with both terms, indicating a need and opportunity for the adoption of effective language.

Here are some top-line results from the survey:

• 35% of respondents had heard a lot or some about ‘climate intervention,’ whereas only 19% of respondents had heard of ‘geoengineering’

• When given a list of possible definitions for each term, 57% of respondents were able to correctly identify that ‘climate intervention’ is about efforts to combat climate change, compared to only 22% of respondents with ‘geoengineering.’

• By a 4-to-1 ratio (45% to 10%), respondents were also more likely to say ‘geoengineering’ sounds harder to understand than ‘climate intervention.’

• By a 3-to-1 ratio (32% to 11%), respondents felt that of the two terms, ‘climate intervention’ “sounds safer” than ‘geoengineering.’

Today, as society begins to consider a broader range of responses to dangerous climate conditions, accurate and accessible language to describe possible options for responding is deeply important. To promote informed dialogue, science-based decision-making, and real participation from a wide array of stakeholders in society in a matter of profound importance to their futures, we will use — and encourage our colleagues and others who are concerned about societal dialogue in this area to use — ‘climate intervention’ to describe these approaches.

We note that this language, and our study to date, is centered in the U.S., and we hope to explore international reactions and equivalents in the future.

Statement on the United States Rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement

Kelly Wanser, Executive Director of SilverLining, released the following statement on the United States rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement:

"SilverLining applauds the Biden-Harris administration's decision to rapidly rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement and recommit to fighting back against climate change. Overcoming the climate crisis is a difficult task, but today's decision is a strong first step toward the international cooperation necessary to slow our planet's warming. SilverLining urges President Biden and his administration to invest in the nation’s climate observation and research capabilities and in research into all potential options, including climate interventions, to ensure a safe climate."

Comment on Proposed Governance Framework for Harvard University's Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx)

Click here to view the full submission to the SCoPEx Advisory Committee.

SilverLining's Executive Director, Kelly Wanser, and Research Director, Alex Wong, submitted comments to the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) Advisory Committee on the proposed Public Engagement Process. SCoPEx aims to advance understanding of some aspects of aerosol microphysics and atmospheric chemistry to inform model simulations of the atmosphere that help estimate the risks and benefits of solar climate intervention, a proposed means of cooling climate.

The independent SCoPEx Advisory Committee set out to develop a process for broad and open public engagement to adequately address and explore the ethical issues and uncertainties raised by solar climate intervention (“solar geoengineering”) research. SilverLining applauds the group’s efforts to advance knowledge and governance for solar climate intervention but advises that the effort reorient to support the critical role of independent science in informed public dialogue and effective decision-making.  

As we have learned from the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis, in areas where public safety is at risk, like climate change, scientific research is a matter of urgency and is essential to inform dialogue and decision-making. Any efforts to govern basic research require substantial evidence of their benefits versus the high cost to society of delay. Non-scientific influences should not influence scientific practice, research findings, or recommendations. Such interference introduces the potential for unjust influence, poses risks to decision-making and undermines public trust. 

Larger societal and ethical questions are important to discuss and debate openly—these discussions should be informed by interactions with scientists, but should not influence any particular study or its findings. Public engagement should be oriented around decisions about investment in, and any potential use of, interventions versus any individual research study. Such engagement should be informed by science and should include robust mechanisms for managing dynamics like representation and bias, an area in which governmental institutions often have the most robust mechanisms.

SilverLining's recommendation to the Advisory Committee is to evolve its efforts, including the Public Engagement Plan, to better align public engagement with appropriate objects, to increase the independence of scientific review, and to explore existing government mechanisms in the United States to promote better outcomes for SCoPEx, for Harvard, and for society.

SilverLining's full submission can be found here; below are SilverLining's general comments and recommendations:

Overview:

• ScoPEx is an experiment with importance to knowledge generation in an area that may be critical to the safety of communities and the stability of natural systems. It should be reviewed for safety against direct physical harms and subject to independent scientific review. It should not be delayed by processes aimed at consideration of the wider societal implications of solar climate interventions or influenced by the opinions of non-scientists.

Summary of Recommendations:

• The Advisory Committee should clearly distinguish the following issues: (a) the scientific merits of SCoPEx; (b) its compliance with federal and state regulatory requirements; (c) its potential environmental and other physical impacts; and (d) the broader societal impacts of solar climate intervention research. These issues are very different and should be addressed in different ways by different bodies.

• The Advisory Committee should employ an independent mechanism for scientific review of the design and subsequent findings of SCoPEx, with possible submission to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for such review. 

• Public engagement or any other non-scientific review should not directly influence activities or decisions for the ScoPEx experiment or any small-scale scientific experiment or research study.

• The Advisory Committee should ensure general societal impacts are considered through a broader societal and political process, since they relate to solar climate intervention in general, not ScoPEx in particular. This should be undertaken at the level of interdisciplinary programs such as Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program (SGRP) and as a part of governmental and intergovernmental institutional processes.

U.S. Climate Policy Must Address Near-Term Climate Risk: SilverLining's Recommendations To The Biden-Harris Administration

Source: Christopher Michel

The below blog post was published alongside SilverLining's policy recommendations to the incoming Biden Administration. 

By Kelly Wanser, SilverLining

New leadership in the United States  presents a powerful opportunity for efforts to combat climate change. The Biden-Harris administration's forward-looking climate action plan lays the groundwork for significant progress. We at SilverLining are excited for this progress and have shared a series of recommendations to the President-elect and his team on near-term imperatives for comprehensive climate policy. 

Climate change poses near-term risks to the safety and security of the nation that are not adequately addressed by current measures for reducing and removing greenhouse gases. The projected economic cost of climate impacts and extremes is staggering—including estimates of $180 billion due to recent western wildfires and hundreds of billions of dollars in damage from storms and flooding. 

Vulnerable communities are suffering from climate impacts now and are projected to face devastating conditions over the next few decades, before efforts to reduce emissions can take effect. Climate justice requires protecting vulnerable people from the worst effects of climate change while we work toward a sustainable future.

At the same time, warming is causing parts of the earth system to reach dangerous points of instability, approaching "tipping points" where these systems could change abruptly in ways that accelerate warming out of human control. Climate models have trouble representing these dynamics, so these risks may be higher than we think. There is an urgent need for investment in both climate research to help forecast these changes as well as possible interventions to prevent them.

The Biden-Harris administration is already planning to rejoin The Paris Agreement, and this is a critical first step in major efforts to address climate change. Plans for a clean energy future are powerful steps too. In addition to expanding our portfolio of climate mitigation tools, it is important that our leaders commit to ensuring near-term climate safety. This requires rapidly improving our ability to monitor and predict major changes and exploring interventions to reduce warming to reduce or prevent them.

Scientists—here in the U.S. and internationally—have suggested that one of the most promising ways to reduce warming within a few years (or less) lies in one of the ways that nature can cool the Earth: increasing the reflection of sunlight from the atmosphere, or "solar climate intervention" (SCI). Solar climate intervention has potential to reduce impacts on vulnerable communities and prevent catastrophic changes. Is it effective? Can it be done safely? Substantial investment in climate and climate intervention research are required to answer these questions. Today we face unaddressed exposure to near-term catastrophic risk. We must invest in research, technology innovation and international scientific cooperation to chart a course that keeps the world’s people safe and its ecosystems stable.

Our recommendations to the incoming Biden-Harris administration cut across science, national security, social justice, and international cooperation but all are centered on the imperatives of ensuring the safety of people and stability of natural systems in the next few decades. A summary of our recommendations is below and you can read the complete report here. 

Lead and foster international engagement on responding to near-term climate risks.

A number of factors make international governance of potential climate interventions challenging—but these challenges underscore the need for effective governance. Coordination between international bodies on the potential implementation of climate interventions will require close collaboration and alignment across a wide-ranging and diverse group of stakeholders. There are a number of wise steps the Biden-Harris administration should take early to engage with international forums. In addition to re-affirming the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement, the incoming administration should call on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to hold an expert meeting on near-term abrupt change risks and rapid climate interventions as well as issue a Special Report on the topic. The Biden-Harris administration should also support current and future assessment of solar climate intervention by the Montreal Protocol. 

In shaping its approach to international engagement, the Biden-Harris administration should pursue an international decision-making process that considers how to ensure "two safeties," the safety of a warming climate and the safety of using climate interventions, should they be warranted, where decisions are weighed by the international community through an approach that is both cooperative and based in science. Weighing risks of potential action versus risks of potential inaction is key to informed decision making. The Biden-Harris administration can also play a role in assessing international governance bodies and work with a range of organizations to formulate an international governance structure for science-based decision making on climate intervention. 

Substantially increase investments in climate research, climate intervention research, and reduction of short-lived climate forcers 

Expanding government resources dedicated to climate intervention research is the single biggest step the Biden-Harris administration can take to address near-term climate risks. Such research will help support a safe climate for future generations and has remained an area of bipartisan support. Policymakers will need a strong foundation of knowledge to be able to make informed, science-based decisions related to escalating climate impacts and the potential use of climate interventions. The knowledge can only be gained with an immediate and robust expansion of research efforts.

To accelerate progress, the Biden-Harris administration should substantially increase investments in climate research and earth system prediction, with the potential for an "Operation Warp Speed" focused on climate prediction. The incoming administration should also prioritize fast-acting solutions and establish a national climate intervention research effort to assess the benefits and risks of methods to rapidly reduce warming. This would allow the U.S. to build capabilities to inform assessment of solar climate interventions within five years, accelerating relevant research efforts in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Energy (DOE), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies.

Work with science-based international partners to grow capacity in vulnerable communities to contribute to climate intervention research.

Climate interventions to reduce warming globally or regionally may be especially important for protecting vulnerable communities both domestically and internationally. These communities are disproportionately harmed by climate impacts, while simultaneously facing strong disadvantages in their capacity to adapt. The Biden-Harris administration should prioritize working with science-based international partners to grow capacity in these communities to contribute to climate intervention research and grow the foundation for representation in scientific and policy discourses. 

Promote the engagement of women and people of color in research and policy for climate intervention.

In recent years, many women have emerged in the field of climate intervention research, including in positions of leadership, on scientific assessment panels, as conference chairs and keynotes and, in at least one case, as an all-female research team. People of color are less present, in both climate and climate intervention research and policy. Near-term climate risks and responses disproportionately affect people of color, making their involvement in responses, including climate intervention, imperative. A Biden-Harris administration should promote the engagement of women and people of color in scientific research and policy dialogue on climate intervention. 

Incorporate climate change into the national defense mission.

Climate impacts pose direct threats to U.S. national security in terms of strategic infrastructure and operations and also threaten global security by increasing instability in vulnerable regions and ecosystems, such as in the Arctic. 

As climate impacts increase, other nations are beginning to invest in major efforts in weather modification and research in SCI, including efforts in China, India, the Middle East and developing nations. Lacking information on these approaches, the United States is unprepared to assess and respond to international efforts.  including whether to cooperate in these activities or work to constrain them. To address these critical gaps in the Nation’s security portfolio, the Biden-Harris administration should include climate change as a part of the national defense mission.  It should expand the Department of Defense's (DoD) climate and weather observation and prediction capabilities, and collaboration with civilian science agencies. To prevent strategic surprise and respond to international efforts, it should drive toward a five-year assessment of solar climate interventions.

Moving forward 

With a new administration comes new opportunities to combat Earth's warming and secure a safe climate for our future generations. As President-elect Biden has said, "This is the United States of America. There is not a single thing we have not been able to accomplish once we set our minds to it. Together, we can and will meet the challenge of this climate emergency." At SilverLining, we share this optimism and look forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration to create progress on this critically important issue over the coming years.  

To learn more about SilverLinining's work, visit our website here and read our Ensuring A Safe Climate report for U.S. policymakers here.