Whether you like the idea or not, Make Sunsets, a Silicon Valley pow-wow startup, is turning heads at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Their radical geoengineering projects would permanently lower the temperature of our planet. Future of 750k+, an early stage Techstars company Future’s completed a $750,000 angel round from Draper Associates, Boost VC, and Pioneer Fund. It conducts exhilarating weather modification experiments by launching weather balloons the size of a house, filled with flaming hydrogen gas and sulfur dioxide particles.
Two brothers run this little startup, and they send up these weather balloons that explode at around 66,000 feet. Once the balloons burst, they immediately begin to emit sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere. This gas releases and reflects sunlight, in theory creating a slight global cooling effect. Yet proponents have been met with severe opposition, as critics claim that this methodology is one massive uncontrolled experiment on the Earth’s climate system.
The EPA’s investigation into Make Sunsets is the result of alarms raised about the environmental damage that its operations could cause. According to the agency, Make Sunsets has deployed balloons containing a total of 1,715 grams of sulfur dioxide. That’s approximately the same as the volume contained in just under 343,900,000 regular balloons. The probe, headed by EPA Administrator Zeldin, aims not to shut Make Sunsets down but rather to figure out whether the company has broken any current rules.
The Weather Modification Act of 1976 is the primary federal law regulating activities such as cloud seeding. Even that may not meet the standard of addressing all the geoengineering techniques that Make Sunsets employs. Cloud seeding typically involves injecting particles, like silver iodide, into clouds in order to encourage precipitation. In contrast, Make Sunsets uses radically different methods that distinguish it from this conventional approach.
In response to the EPA’s criticism, Make Sunsets claims that their operations follow the guidelines of the Weather Modification Act. They stated, “Yes, our method to cool Earth falls under the Weather Modification Act of 1976 and report yearly to NOAA of our deployments as required.” This claim raises questions about the interpretation of existing laws and whether they are sufficient to address modern geoengineering practices.
Fenceline communities and environmental justice critics point out the EPA’s hypocritical stance regarding its own pliant approach to pollution regulation. Their concerns increase, especially after the inquiry into Make Sunsets. Even if we’re glad the agency has chosen to shine the spotlight on this small-scale operation, larger industrial polluters routinely evade this type of scrutiny.
As this investigation continues, the outcome for future geoengineering projects is uncertain. The result will shape the future development of regulations to keep pace with new technologies like those designed to combat the growing effects of climate change.
Leave a Reply