While geoengineering projects should be considered as a viable option for decreasing the amount of heat energy absorbed by the Earth, the concept has yet to be applied, as it is still in its research phase, and further testing is warranted before it is implemented as a tool to mitigate global warming. The University of Washington MCBP (Marine Cloud Brightening Program) was interested in studying the effects of releasing aerosolized salt water on the brightness and therefore reflectiveness of marine clouds, as more reflective clouds would cause the Earth to absorb less heat. The UW MCBP created a device called Cloud Aerosol Research Instrument (CARI), which is similar to a snowmaker, to apply salt water into the environment. In early April, the researchers began experiments with CARI, which were not conducted to impact the environment, but to measure the amount of spray the device released to see if it was of optimal size. The project was in collaboration with the USS Hornet, with the UW MCBP contributing to educational programming and doing research on the ship’s flight deck. After two weeks, the City of Alameda halted the project, claiming that it violated their lease.

Investigation commissioned by the city of Alameda concluded that the experiment was not expected to pose any “measurable health risk to the surrounding community,” yet the members of the council voted unanimously against it. The City’s consultant, Terraphase Engineering, reported that the solution consisted of chemicals “similar to seawater” and “are naturally occurring in the environment,” even deeming the compounds “one of the largest sources of natural aerosols in the atmosphere.” To ensure the safety of the experiment, Terraphase advised that the research team be required to submit a document including the details of the study to be reviewed in accordance with relevant regulations, along with an air monitoring plan using air quality monitors. Despite their lack of threat to safety and the ability to further monitor any possible dangers, the City prevented the project from continuing. They claimed that the rejection was not due to concern of geoengineering, but rather how the project was handled. Before starting their tests, the researchers hired a firm that claimed the experiments were covered by the lease with the USS Hornet and therefore did not require approval from an air quality inspection agency. However, the city decided that the unapproved experiments violated the lease, as they were “inconsistent with the approved use.” The city of Alameda attributed their decision to stop the project to the UW MCBP’s lack of communication complaining about first hearing about it from a news article (Bush 2024), but Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft admitted that she was opposed to the project itself. She reflected her uncertainty about the new field when she shared that she didn’t “have a huge desire to be on the cutting edge,” and that it wasn’t “the right time” (Karlamangla and Flavelle).

 Geoengineering is a promising method of delaying the rise of Earth’s temperature rising as a result of global warming, but because of its controversy, it must be rigorously tested and effectively communicated about so as not to spark fear or worsen its appearance in the public eye. The fact that the study was halted despite its safety shows how important it is to be entirely transparent in controversial avenues of technology. Although the MCBP team commissioned a firm that assured them their experiments did not violate the lease, they should have seeked out City’s approval before moving forward with the project. Even though their experiments were shown to be safe and they did not think they had to inform the City of their plans, they should have gone above and beyond to communicate clearly so as not to worry those uneasy with the concept of geoengineering. The project leaders’decision not to notify the City not only led to the destruction of their own plans, but also jeopardized the field’s future in the public eye, as those aware of the project are left with a bad taste in their mouth associated with geoengineering. 

My point of view while initially writing this Synopsis was a bit more critical on the decisions of the USS Hornet research team, as I was receiving information from a single source, the NBC News article that alerted me of this issue. Typically my Synopses cover one source, but writing this post reminded me to consider multiple sources when it comes to news outlets, because it gives me a better view of the situations, as I can factor in multiple perspectives. 

Something I found strange was that NYT quoted the city’s report that the tests were considered safe, but cited a website that did not include the excerpt they included. I was not able to find the report they mentioned until I found a different news outlet that properly cited it. After finding it, I used it as my main source for this article, considering that it is the official report of Alameda’s City Manager. This doesn’t really discredit NYT, because the phrase they quoted was, indeed, part of the report, but I’m not sure why they linked the wrong page.

I still feel like geoengineering is a complex issue, and this event only makes it more complex. Ultimately, I believe that there are more efficient investments for fighting climate change, like decarbonizing the energy sector. However, I do think research is really important, and I’m struggling to see the risks of this program in particular. After doing some digging into the City of Alameda’s decision, it seems more like a fear of the unknown than any specific concern, which would theoretically be resolved by this very research. Of course, I’m no expert in this controversy or in reading legislation, so do take that with a grain of salt. Stay tuned to learn with me!

Bush, Evan. “Trial of Technology Used to Brighten Clouds Gets Voted down in California.” NBCNews.Com, NBCUniversal News Group, 5 June 2024, http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/cloud-brightening-research-shut-down-california-rcna155516. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/ – NBC is known for a “high” factual reporting.

Karlamangla, Soumya, and Christopher Flavelle. “California City Leaders End Cloud-Brightening Test, Overruling Staff.” The New York Times, 5 June 2024, http://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/climate/alameda-cloud-brightening-geoengineering.html. Accessed 18 June 2024.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ – The New York Times is known for a “high” factual reporting.

Ott, Jennifer . “City of Alameda – File #: 2024-4063.” Alameda.legistar.com, 4 June 2024, alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6703251&GUID=9796CAC7-D282-4A95-A7A6-E2D21D1ACA0F&FullText=1. Accessed 18 June 2024.

Flavelle, Christopher. “A Test of Cloud-Brightening Machines Poses no Health Risk, Officials Say.” New York Times (Online)New York Times Company, 2024/05/23/. ProQuest, https://sierracollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/test-cloud-brightening-machines-poses-no-health/docview/3058913654/se-2.

Rivero, Nicolás. “Could Spraying Sea Salt into the Clouds Cool the Planet?” The Washington Post (Online)WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, 2024/06/04/. ProQuest, https://sierracollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/could-spraying-sea-salt-into-clouds-cool-planet/docview/3064391034/se-2.

The Washington Post is known for a “mostly factual” reporting. Note: This article was written before I checked each source’s validity. This was taken from a database provided by my college.