Alameda was just the tip (of the geoengineering iceberg)
SEA LEGS: Remember last year's short-lived climate experiment in San Francisco Bay to test the prospects of altering cloud behavior by spraying seawater into the air?
Turns out researchers had been planning something much bigger than the series of sprays off the deck of the USS Hornet, a retired aircraft carrier docked in Alameda. As Corbin Hiar reports for POLITICO's E&E News, University of Washington researchers were secretly planning on deploying their technology across a stretch of ocean larger than Puerto Rico.
Even before last year's test began, the researchers were talking with consultants and donors (including cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, philanthropist Rachel Pritzker and venture capitalist Chris Sacca) about conducting a 3,900-square-mile cloud-creation test off the west coasts of North America, Chile or south-central Africa, according to more than 400 internal documents Corbin obtained through an open records request to the University of Washington.
'At such scales, meaningful changes in clouds will be readily detectable from space,' said a 2023 research plan from the university's Marine Cloud Brightening Program.
The plans would have been contingent on the Alameda experiment going well — which it didn't, after city officials got so much public pushback and were so taken aback by the project's lack of transparency that they ordered a halt to it.
University of Washington researchers downplayed the latest findings, saying that their work would have focused on research rather than deployment.
The program does not 'recommend, support or develop plans for the use of marine cloud brightening to alter weather or climate,' Sarah Doherty, an atmospheric and climate science professor at the university who leads the program, said in a statement to Corbin.
But unaffiliated academics said the process was flawed.
'Alameda was a stepping stone to something much larger, and there wasn't any engagement with local communities,' said Sikina Jinnah, an environmental studies professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. 'That's a serious misstep.'
It's another public-relations setback for geoengineering writ large, which is drawing criticism from both ends of the scientific spectrum.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law last month that bans the injection or release of chemicals into the atmosphere 'for the express purpose of affecting the temperature, weather, climate, or intensity of sunlight.' Meanwhile, more than 575 scientists have called for a ban on geoengineering development because it 'cannot be governed globally in a fair, inclusive, and effective manner.'
And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has erroneously suggested that geoengineering is responsible for the deadly July 4 flood in Texas and introduced a bill to criminalize the technology, reposted Corbin's story on Sunday. 'There are many extreme and potentially deadly geoengineering projects happening,' she said. 'We must pass my Clear Skies Act to protect our skies and our sun!!' — CH, DK
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!
MISS US?: The news kept happening last week while California Climate was off. Here's what went down on POLITICO Pro:
Desperate times: The California Energy Commission confirmed Wednesday that it's convening discussions with 'market players' ahead of Valero and Phillips 66's planned closure of two of the state's nine refineries by April 2026, which together account for 17 percent of the state's refining capacity. It's the latest move from Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration to woo oil companies back to the state, coming on the heels of legislative language to ease oil-well permitting.
LCFS in the crosshairs: Environmental groups sued the California Air Resources Board (again) over the state's controversial emissions trading market for transportation fuels, arguing that the agency didn't consider costs for low-income communities when it adopted new program rules last year.
The groups, including Food and Water Watch and the Animal Defense Legal Fund, filed the lawsuit in Fresno County Superior Court. The groups also challenged the LCFS amendments in a December lawsuit claiming the agency fell short of requirements in the California Environmental Quality Act by not fully analyzing the environmental and community costs of its update.
A new plan for powering data centers: The California Public Utilities Commission signed off on a new interim rule that will allow PG&E to connect data centers and other large energy users to the grid more quickly. Those energy users will now have standardized permitting requirements, instead of having to apply on a case-by-case basis, potentially shaving months off the time it takes to be approved. Only customers able to pay for the transmission costs upfront will be eligible.
A smelly agreement: U.S. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a deal with Mexican officials Thursday to speed up repairs and upgrades to wastewater treatment infrastructure in an effort to stop untreated sewage from flowing into San Diego waters. The U.S. agreed to expand capacity at a major wastewater treatment plant and release funding to complete pump station and collection pipe repairs, while the Mexican government pledged to look for funding to accelerate planned construction on projects.
Delta dealing: The State Water Resources Control Board on Thursday endorsed a proposal, backed by Newsom, that would allow cities and farmers to conserve water and restore habitat instead of abiding by minimum flow requirements. Newsom praised the board after the hearing, but groups like the Golden State Salmon Association accused board members of 'collapsing under pressure' to approve voluntary agreements environmentalists and tribes have long criticized as too lenient and lacking accountability. — AN, CvK
SOME OPTIONS: Electric vehicle advocates are pushing Newsom and agency officials to double down on EV investments as they scramble to counterbalance the Trump administration's rollback of the state's sales mandates and Biden-era tax incentives.
A group of EV manufacturers, charger developers and environmentalists — including Rivian, Terawatt and the Natural Resources Defense Council — sent a letter to state officials last week, calling on them to backfill federal cuts to EV rebates and offer more financing and permitting streamlining for charging infrastructure.
The seven-page letter also urges the state to reauthorize its cap-and-trade program and protect the low-carbon fuel standard, a pair of carbon-trading markets that provide funding for EV incentives and infrastructure.
The industry's policy outline comes after Newsom issued an executive order June 12 giving state agencies 60 days to issue recommendations for maintaining EV adoption and as CARB is holding a series of public meetings around the state to gather options (the next one is scheduled for Thursday). — AN
ENDANGERMENT IN DANGER: The Trump administration is about to take a sledgehammer to the cornerstone of the federal government's efforts to regulate carbon emissions.
The EPA plans to release a proposal Tuesday that would overturn a 2009 scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare — the predicate for most climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, Jean Chemnick and Zack Colman report for POLITICO's E&E News.
If the courts uphold Trump's move to repeal the endangerment finding, it could be easier for EPA to quickly undo a host of Biden-era climate rules for power plants and oil and gas methane without replacing them with new standards. That's on top of the administration's assault on state climate policies, like California's electric vehicle mandate, which Republicans revoked last month. — AN, JC, ZC
RAKESTRAW RETURNS: Newsom reappointed Andrew Rakestraw as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety on Friday. Rakestraw, a former climate adviser for the Biden administration, was appointed in March to finish the term of former chair Jeanne Rizzo, who retired in February. He was previously a senior climate negotiator at the U.S. Department of State and a senior adviser for John Kerry, Biden's climate envoy.
— Nearly two dozen California House representatives are demanding NOAA investigate a spike in gray whale deaths off the state's coast.
— Replacement tires are generally less fuel-efficient than those that come on new cars, costing drivers extra gas money and increasing emissions, a new study finds.
— The Trump administration is celebrating the revival of three oil rigs off Santa Barbara, as state regulators pursue fines and cease-and-desist orders against the company behind the restart.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
20 hours ago
- Fox News
Common sweetener could hold untapped potential to fight aggressive cancer, study finds
A household sweetener could hold the potential to create an anti-cancer treatment. New research from Hiroshima University in Japan revealed that stevia leaf extract could help fight pancreatic cancer cells. The leaves of the stevia plant (Stevia rebaudiana) are used to make stevia extract, a naturally sweet substance commonly used as a sugar substitute. The study, published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, investigated the anti-cancer properties of stevia leaf extract when it is fermented with a certain strain of bacteria. In laboratory research, the fermented extract exhibited "significantly enhanced antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity" against pancreatic cancer cells, the researchers revealed. This led them to believe that this substance could serve as a "promising candidate for pancreatic cancer treatment." Paul E. Oberstein, M.D., medical oncologist and assistant director of the Pancreatic Cancer Center at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, shared his thoughts in an interview with Fox News Digital. "This is an interesting study because it evaluated something derived from a natural plant (stevia) and showed that it may have utility in stopping cancer cells from growing in the laboratory," he said. "As the authors point out, the actual stevia plant does not seem to have any benefit for stopping cancer, so they had to use a chemical process to change the plant and make it stronger with a fermentation process." "This is the process of how we discover new treatments – some of which turn out to be absolute game-changers." Oberstein recommended approaching this with caution, as it is unknown whether altering the plant will lead to side effects or toxicity. The study was not performed on humans, so there is "still a lot that's unknown about whether this will help patients," the oncologist added. As stevia extract alone does not have an impact on cancer cells, Oberstein said these findings most likely will not lead to any immediate changes in treatment plans. "The study suggests that if the stevia can be changed in the lab, it may have an impact, so hopefully they will further test this and determine whether this effect happens when tested in people and if it doesn't cause new side effects," he added. "I hope the researchers keep testing this in various formats and in people." Dr. Kristen Arnold, a surgical oncologist and pancreatic cancer specialist at the Orlando Health Cancer Institute, reacted to these study findings in a separate interview with Fox News Digital. "Pancreatic cancer is a very aggressive malignancy," she said. "And we know that even with the most aggressive of therapies, unfortunately, our outcomes are not good." "As a pancreatic cancer community, we spend a lot of time and there's a lot of ongoing effort into trying to find better modalities to treat this disease." Although more research is needed to confirm these preliminary findings, Arnold said she is encouraged by the study. "I think the data's very early to know if it's ultimately going to be a game-changer, but it's very exciting to know that we're finding some positive pre-clinical data," she said. "This is the process of how we discover new treatments – some of which turn out to be absolute game-changers and make dramatic changes in the lives of our patients." "Not all of it pans out, but it's a process of discovery," Arnold added. For those with pancreatic cancer, Arnold recommends seeking out appropriate clinical trial opportunities as new science develops. "The clinical trials are ultimately what determine how we treat patients on a day-to-day basis," she added. Fox News Digital reached out to the study authors for comment.
NBC News
3 days ago
- NBC News
Minimal U.S. effects from tsunami don't mean the forecast was inaccurate
The magnitude-8.8 earthquake off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka peninsula sent a wave of water racing at the speed of a jetliner toward Hawaii, California and Washington state, spurring warnings and alarm overnight on Wednesday. But when the tsunami waves arrived, they didn't cause devastation or deaths in the U.S. and the inundation might not have appeared threatening in some locations where warnings were issued. That doesn't mean the tsunami was a "bust," that it was poorly forecast or that it didn't pose a risk, earthquake and tsunami researchers said. 'You start to hear tsunami warning and everyone immediately thinks of the last Hollywood movie they saw and then it comes in at 3 feet and people are like, 'What's that?'' said Harold Tobin, the director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network and a professor at the University of Washington. 'We should count it as a win that a tsunami occurred, we got a warning and it wasn't the worst-case scenario.' Here's what to know. How strong was the Kamchatka earthquake? And why did it change so much? The initial reports of the Kamchatka earthquake from the United States Geological Survey pegged it as a 8.0-magnitude. Later, it was upgraded to an 8.8 magnitude quake. 'That is not uncommon for very, very large earthquakes in those initial minutes,' Tobin said. 'Our standard algorithms for determining the size of an earthquake quickly saturate. It's like turning up an amp and getting a lot of distortion." One of the first signs the earthquake was stronger than the initial seismic reports was an initial measurement from a buoy about 275 miles southeast of the Kamchatka peninsula. The buoy, which is part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's DART (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) system, is connected to a seafloor pressure sensor about 4 miles below the surface. The sensor registered a 90-centimeter wave, which is eye-popping to tsunami researchers. 'That's the second-largest recording we ever saw in the tsunami world,' said Vasily Titov, a senior tsunami modeler at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, adding that it indicated there was 'a catastrophic tsunami propagating in the ocean.' Titov said the only higher reading was from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, which caused nearly 16,000 deaths in Japan. Seismic models later confirmed that Wednesday's earthquake was a magnitude-8.8, which means it released nearly 16 times as much energy as a magnitude-8.0 earthquake, according to a USGS calculation tool. Tōhoku was much bigger. Tobin estimated that earthquake released 2-3 times as much energy as was observed in Kamchatka. Titov said the tsunami in Japan was also about three times larger. Additionally, Tobin said the Tōhoku earthquake 'produced an anomalously large seafloor displacement,' lurching and moving more water than expected, even for an earthquake of its magnitude. At Kamchatka, 'it's likely that there was less seafloor displacement than could have happened in a worst case or more dire scenario for a magnitude 8.8,' Tobin said, though more research will be needed to confirm that theory. How did researchers make a forecast? How good was the forecast? In two hours' time, researchers produced a tsunami forecast for 'pretty much the whole Pacific and for warning points along the U.S. coastlines,' Titov said, with predictions of water levels at coastal tide gauges and also for flood inundation. The tsunami took about eight hours to reach Hawaii and 12 hours to reach the California coast. Titov, who helped build the models used by forecasters who issue warnings from the National Tsunami Warning Centers in Hawaii and Alaska, said the models rely on seismic data and the network of nearly 80 DART buoys in place along the Pacific Rim, which sense pressure changes. The U.S. owns and operates about half of the DART buoys. Titov said the models indicated that north shore areas of Hawaii would receive tsunami waves of about two meters or less. 'Hilo was predicted at about still two meters [6.5 feet] and it materialized at about 150 centimeters,' or 1.5 meters [5 feet], Titov said. 'It's exactly how we want it — a little bit on the conservative side.' The same trend played out in parts of California, Titov said. It will take some time to assess how well the models predicted inundation because reports are still coming in about the extent of flooding. 'We know that the flooding occurred at Hawaii. We don't know exactly the extent, but from the reports that I saw on TV, it looks like exactly what we predicted,' Titov said. Why were people in Hawaii evacuated for a five-foot wave? Yong Wei, a tsunami modeler and senior research scientist at the University of Washington and the NOAA Center for Tsunami Research, said a 1.5 meter [5 foot] tsunami wave can be very dangerous, particularly in shallow waters off Hawaii. Tsunami waves contain far more energy than wind waves, which are far shorter in wavelength, period (time between waves) and slower in speed. Wei said tsunami waves of the size that struck Hawaii can surge inland 'tens of meters,' produce dangerous currents and cause damage to boats and other moveable objects. 'People die. If they stay there and they don't get any warning, two meters can definitely kill people,' Wei said. 'If you're on the beach, strong currents can definitely pull you out into the ocean and people will get drowned.' Tobin said the initial warnings were conservative, but appropriate, in his view. 'I don't want people to think, oh, we had a warning and nothing much happened and poo poo it — 'I can ignore it,'' Tobin said. 'Warnings by nature have to err a bit on the side of caution.' Was this a historic event? No. The Kamchatka peninsula has a long history of earthquakes. 'This was an area that was ready for another earthquake and there had been a lot of earthquakes in that region over the last few weeks,' said Breanyn MacInnes, a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at Central Washington University, which indicates increased risk. In 1952, before scientists had a strong understanding of plate tectonics, a 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck offshore of the Kamchatka peninsula in much the same region, sending a tsunami into the town of Severo-Kurilsk. 'People in Russia were not really prepared for it. It was very big earthquake, a big tsunami and they were caught off guard,' MacInnes said. MacInnes said the tsunami produced was between 30 and 60 feet in height in southern parts of the peninsula. 'Thousands of people were killed and basically the town was destroyed,' said Joanne Bourgeois, an emeritus professor of sedimentology at the University of Washington, who has been studying the region's earthquake history for about three decades. How would the tsunami warning system perform if the earthquake struck closer to home? The Kamchatka tsunami is a megathrust earthquake produced along large subduction zone fault, when one tectonic plate is forced beneath another. The U.S. west coast features a similar fault, called the Cascadia subduction zone, which runs offshore along the U.S. West Coast from Northern California to northern Vancouver Island. 'This is kind of a mirror image across the Pacific,' Tobin said. 'An 8.8 at a relatively shallow depth in Cascadia is definitely in the realm of scenarios. We could have a similar event here.' In fact, Cascadia has the potential to produce much larger quakes, Tobin said. Modeling suggests Cascadia could produce tsunami waves as tall as 100 feet. Subduction zone earthquakes typically produce tsunamis that reach shore in about 30 minutes to an hour, Titov said, which would strain forecasters' capabilities to predict tsunami effects precisely along the U.S. west coast before inundation happened. Titov said more seafloor sensors, more computer processing and innovation with artificial intelligence algorithms are needed to speed forecasting. Tobin said the successful tsunami warning on Tuesday should spur investment in seafloor sensors and seismic monitoring stations offshore along the subduction zone. 'This shows the value and importance of NOAA and the USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] in these times where some of these government agencies have come into question,' Tobin said. 'We wouldn't have had a tsunami warning if it weren't for NOAA and the next one could be a closer event. They showed their value.'
CNN
4 days ago
- CNN
First Tsunami waves hit Hawaii after major quake in Russia
Water levels were recorded above four feet on the north shore of Hawaii's Oahu Island. University of Washington senior research scientist Yong Wei joins MJ Lee on 'Early Start' to discuss.
