Enemies could weaponise new weather technologies against UK
The government is working to understand the risks associated with an 'independent or third-party actor' carrying out so-called 'solar geoengineering'.
The process, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM), aims to cool the earth artificially by reflecting sunlight away from the planet's surface.
• We know how to cool the planet. Is it worth the risk?
This can theoretically be achieved using two main techniques. The first involves shooting aerosols into the atmosphere that will bounce the sun's rays back into space. The second involves increasing the reflectivity of clouds over the ocean by spraying tiny droplets of sea water into the air.
The UK government has tasked scientists with investigating the impact a large-scale deployment of these 'radical intervention measures'.
In a ministerial letter first obtained by the Daily Telegraph, Kerry McCarthy, the climate minister, wrote: 'The UK is a longstanding leader on climate action and an active international collaborator in scientific research. The government recognises the need to understand the risks and impacts of [solar radiation modification] approaches that could be deployed by an independent or third-party actor. Robust scientific evidence is essential for informing responsible and inclusive governance.'
• Hope to halt climate change by thickening Arctic sea ice
These third-party agents could include countries taking action to lower their carbon emissions, according to experts. However, they could also be hostile nations such as Russia using solar geoengineering techniques to orchestrate environmental disasters against their enemies.
Dan Marks, a research fellow in energy security at the Royal United Services Institute, said that worrying about the weaponisation of such technologies before they were fully understood was 'premature', but warned that it could be a factor in the long run.
He said: 'If the technology exists, then it would be unusual if you look at a pattern of history of warfare for it not to be [weaponised]. Targeting agriculture and food, logistics infrastructure, water or other natural resources is common.
• The new tech that could control Britain's weather
'Almost every country is vulnerable to some type of extreme weather, so if you can make that weather better with the technology, you can likely make it worse by deploying the technology at the opposite time.'
Whether or not the technology could be used by combatants with a degree of plausible deniability was another important factor, he said.
Marks cautioned that research was in its infancy, adding: 'I don't think this is something that's going to happen tomorrow and it's not clear if it can actually happen.'
• The climate radicals who want to cool the planet with space mirrors and clouds
He said that policing the initial civilian use of the technology would be a more pressing concern because 'weather systems don't stop at borders'.
'If a country decided to deploy that kind of technology [to mitigate climate change], then there is a real question of how do you treat that legally and diplomatically?
'Equally, what if an Elon Musk or an activist group decided to do it, and decided to do it in the middle of the ocean? How do you govern that?'
Matt Ince, the associate director at Dragonfly Intelligence, said that governments had long been concerned about the potential for countries to use 'sun dimming technology' unilaterally to combat the most extreme effects of climate change.
He said that the new emerging threat was 'some sort of intentionally orchestrated environmental disaster', which is an 'avenue that Russia may pursue'.
'On the more imaginative end of the spectrum it's feasible it could involve deliberately trying to use solar geoengineering technologies to destabilise the climate within a European state and create chaos and a sense of discord, and force countries to become more inward focused,' he told the Daily Telegraph.
Critics of the proposed approaches argue that there are unknown risks and they distract from global efforts to reduce emissions.
More than 560 academics have signed an open letter calling for an 'international non-use agreement' on solar geoengineering.
The letter states: 'Without effective global and democratic controls, the geopolitics of possible unilateral deployment of solar geoengineering would be frightening and inequitable.'
The UK government's position is not to deploy solar radiation modification or any climate cooling approaches, but it has commissioned teams of scientists to research the technology and identify any risks with using it.
Aria, the government's advanced research and invention agency, is providing more than £50 million in funding for outdoor field trials, which include 'brightening clouds' to reflect sunshine as a potential way to prevent climate change.
Aria said: 'The only long-term solution to climate change is rapid decarbonisation and that must remain the priority. But regardless of emissions cuts, there is growing concern we may pass tipping points in the Earth's system.
'Aria's programme is focused on generating fundamental scientific knowledge about whether any proposed climate cooling approaches could ever be safe or feasible — or whether they should be ruled out entirely.'
The government said: 'The government is not in favour of using Solar Radiation Modification, but we support cautious, controlled research aimed at improving our understanding of its risks and impacts.
'The government supports Aria's mission to fund high-risk, high-reward transformational research programmes with long-term benefits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists discover cancer-fighting bacteria that 'soak up' forever chemicals in the body
A family of healthy bacteria may help 'soak up' toxic forever chemicals in the body, warding off their cancerous effects. Forever chemicals, also known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), are toxic chemicals that have been linked cancer, infertility and birth defects. They're named because they don't naturally break down in the environment or the body. Instead, they leech from plastic containers and nonstick cookware into food and build up in vital organs, increasing the risk of organ failure, infertility and some forms of cancer. Researchers at the University of Cambridge took samples of 38 strains of healthy bacteria living in the human gut and put them into lab mice. They found mice carrying human gut bacteria had up to 74 percent more 'forever' chemicals in their stool compared to mice without the bacteria within minutes of exposure. This suggests the toxins latched on to the bacteria as they moved through the digestive tract, leaving the body through the stool. While mountains of research have demonstrated deadly effects of forever chemicals, the new study is one of the first to show they can be taken out of the body instead of accumulating in there forever. And it builds on recent research showing a link between PFAS and the digestive tract. A study published last month, for example, found PFAS latches on to bile acids in the gut and eating fiber can help filter that excess bile out. Dr Kiran Patil, senior study author and toxicologist at the University of Cambridge, said: 'Given the scale of the problem of PFAS "forever chemicals," particularly their effects on human health, it's concerning that so little is being done about removing these from our bodies. 'We found that certain species of human gut bacteria have a remarkably high capacity to soak up PFAS from their environment at a range of concentrations, and store these in clumps inside their cells. 'Due to aggregation of PFAS in these clumps, the bacteria themselves seem protected from the toxic effects.' PFAS are thought to be endocrine-disrupting chemicals, meaning they imitate the body's hormones and interfere with the production of - and response to - natural hormones like estrogen and testosterone. This increases the risk of developing hormone-sensitive cancers like breast and ovarian cancer. The study, published Tuesday in the journal Nature Microbiology, looked at samples of 38 healthy bacteria in the gut. The researchers measured the effect of bacteria on levels of the forever chemicals perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorooctanoate acid (PFOA). PFOA is considered a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning it causes cancer in animals. PFNA, meanwhile, is a Group 2 carcinogen, suggesting it may cause cancer in animals. Over the course of 24 hours, nine of the tested bacteria reduced exposure to PFNA by 25 to 74 percent and PFOA levels by 23 to 58 percent. For both types of PFAS, Odoribacter splanchnicus lead to the greatest reductions. It's thought to produce the short-chain fatty acid butyrate, which boosts metabolism and immune function. The team believes PFAS latch onto the bacteria and are excreted out of the body through the stool. The researchers are now working on developing probiotic supplements to increase levels of these healthy bacteria in the gut. Dr Indra Roux, study co-author and researcher at the University of Cambridge's MRC Toxicology Unit, said: 'The reality is that PFAS are already in the environment and in our bodies, and we need to try and mitigate their impact on our health now. 'We haven't found a way to destroy PFAS, but our findings open the possibility of developing ways to get them out of our bodies where they do the most harm.'
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Major reports about how climate change affects the US are removed from websites
Legally mandated U.S. national climate assessments seem to have disappeared from the federal websites built to display them, making it harder for state and local governments and the public to learn what to expect in their backyards from a warming world. Scientists said the peer-reviewed authoritative reports save money and lives. Websites for the national assessments and the U.S. Global Change Research Program were down Monday and Tuesday with no links, notes or referrals elsewhere. The White House, which was responsible for the assessments, said the information will be housed within NASA to comply with the law, but gave no further details. Searches for the assessments on NASA websites did not turn them up. NASA did not respond to requests for information. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which coordinated the information in the assessments, did not respond to repeated inquiries. "It's critical for decision makers across the country to know what the science in the National Climate Assessment is. That is the most reliable and well-reviewed source of information about climate that exists for the United States," said University of Arizona climate scientist Kathy Jacobs, who coordinated the 2014 version of the report. 'It's a sad day for the United States if it is true that the National Climate Assessment is no longer available," Jacobs said. "This is evidence of serious tampering with the facts and with people's access to information, and it actually may increase the risk of people being harmed by climate-related impacts.' Harvard climate scientist John Holdren, who was President Obama's science advisor and whose office directed the assessments, said after the 2014 edition he visited governors, mayors and other local officials who told him how useful the 841-page report was. It helped them decide whether to raise roads, build seawalls and even move hospital generators from basements to roofs, he said. 'This is a government resource paid for by the taxpayer to provide the information that really is the primary source of information for any city, state or federal agency who's trying to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate,' said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who has been a volunteer author for several editions of the report. Copies of past reports are still squirreled away in NOAA's library. NASA's open science data repository includes dead links to the assessment site. The most recent report, issued in 2023, included an interactive atlas that zoomed down to the county level. It found that climate change is affecting people's security, health and livelihoods in every corner of the country in different ways, with minority and Native American communities often disproportionately at risk. The 1990 Global Change Research Act requires a national climate assessment every four years and directs the president to establish an interagency United States Global Change Research Program. In the spring, the Trump administration told the volunteer authors of the next climate assessment that their services weren't needed and ended the contract with the private firm that helps coordinate the website and report. Additionally, NOAA's main website was recently forwarded to a different NOAA website. Social media and blogs at NOAA and NASA about climate impacts for the general public were cut or eliminated. 'It's part of a horrifying big picture,' Holdren said. 'It's just an appalling whole demolition of science infrastructure.' The national assessments are more useful than international climate reports put out by the United Nations every seven or so years because they are more localized and more detailed, Hayhoe and Jacobs said. The national reports are not only peer reviewed by other scientists, but examined for accuracy by the National Academy of Sciences, federal agencies, the staff and the public. Hiding the reports would be censoring science, Jacobs said. And it's dangerous for the country, Hayhoe said, comparing it to steering a car on a curving road by only looking through the rearview mirror: "And now, more than ever, we need to be looking ahead to do everything it takes to make it around that curve safely. It's like our windshield's being painted over.' ___ Associated Press writer Will Weissert contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
How common cough syrup could help Parkinson's patients
A new study suggests that Ambroxol, a common cough syrup, may slow the progression of dementia in patients with Parkinson's disease. The year-long clinical trial involving 55 participants found Ambroxol to be safe, well-tolerated, and capable of reaching therapeutic levels in the brain. Participants receiving Ambroxol showed stable neuropsychiatric symptoms, unlike the placebo group, where symptoms worsened, and those with high-risk genetic variants showed improved cognitive performance. The drug appears to protect the brain from deterioration, as indicated by stable levels of the brain damage marker GFAP in the Ambroxol group compared to an increase in the placebo group. While Ambroxol is widely used in Europe for respiratory conditions, it remains unapproved for any use in the United States or Canada, with researchers hoping for larger trials to confirm its effectiveness.
