SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Ca. – Luke Iseman and Andrew Song weren’t breaking any laws as they transported heavy cylinders of sulfur dioxide in Song’s RV to release into weather balloons.

Legal? Yes. Controversial? Definitely.

On a warm summer night in rural Silicon Valley, Song injected 3.8 pounds of the gas into a balloon as Iseman prepared a small foam container equipped with an altimeter and GPS.

Iseman then connected the balloon to a helium cylinder, filling it until it became a large, floating orb, towering over him.

With a gentle push, he released the eco-friendly latex balloon into the sky, watching it rise past a giant oak and into the clear evening.

At an altitude of over 14 miles, above commercial flight paths, the balloon popped, releasing its invisible yet reflective cargo into the stratosphere.

“Our aim,” said Iseman, an entrepreneur, “is to cool the planet.”

The duo, both former participants of renowned tech incubator Y Combinator and with extensive experience in tech firms, represent a pioneering effort to combat climate change at their company, Make Sunsets.

On a very small scale, their actions mimic what large volcanoes have done for eons—sending a tiny reflective gas into the stratosphere that redirects a small part of the sun’s energy, which also creates more vibrant sunsets.

Historical records suggest that the eruption of Indonesia’s Mount Tambora in 1815, which released massive amounts of dust and sulfur dioxide, resulted in a global temperature reduction of up to 2 degrees that year.

However, while Iseman and Song believe they are making vital progress to help our planet, many climate scientists warn that this could be the start of a dangerous trend with potentially disastrous results.

“I understand this isn’t the ideal method—it should involve a collective effort from countries and NGOs, led by top scientists,” acknowledged Iseman.

Unfortunately, he feels this collaborative approach is unlikely to happen soon.

“Too many intelligent individuals are fixated on politics and possible downsides while the planet literally burns,” he expressed passionately.

He takes comfort in knowing that their night’s project could offset the equivalent of 1,745 tons of carbon dioxide annually, comparable to the emissions from about 380 cars.

‘It’s like morphine’

For years, climate intervention strategies, known as geoengineering, were deemed speculative and perilous.

When faced with proposals like enhancing algae blooms in the ocean to sequester carbon, injecting substantial amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere yearly, or spraying seawater into the atmosphere to enhance cloud brightness and longevity, experts reacted with alarm.

The Center for International Environmental Law describes geoengineering as “dystopian technologies.” A manifesto with over 100 organizations from 45 nations advocates for a ban on all geoengineering experiments. The ETC Group, an activist organization, keeps a close watch on geoengineering initiatives.

Recently, however, some environmental groups have started to accept that we may need to utilize some geoengineering methods while we also work to reduce carbon emissions, viewing them as potential elements of a global strategy to adapt to climate change.

“Environmental groups recognize that ignoring this topic won’t halt the ongoing discussions and research, so they have to engage, or they will lose all influence,” explained Katharine Ricke, a climate science and global policy expert at UC San Diego.

It’s essential to expedite the understanding of geoengineering since the decision point is nearing, warned Wake Smith, a lecturer at the Yale School of the Environment and author of “Pandora’s Toolbox, the Hopes and Hazards of Climate Intervention.”

“I worry that the climate situation is even worse than we realize,” he stated. He emphasized that geoengineering, especially the solar geoengineering practiced by Make Sunsets, isn’t a cure-all but may provide critical time for global carbon reduction efforts. “It’s not a cure; it’s more like morphine, alleviating pain while recovery takes place.”

Scientists are still debating the most fitting analogy for geoengineering—does it serve as healing morphine for the planet, or does it resemble the dangers of addictive opioids threatening the Earth’s health?

What could go wrong?

Because of uncertainty, many global organizations believe it is still too risky to test geoengineering.

Nevertheless, Make Sunsets continues to launch its balloons.

Potential Consequences

Environmentalists worry that geoengineering might chill the planet excessively or unevenly. It may harm ecosystems, disrupt weather patterns globally, or even exacerbate global warming dramatically if such projects are abruptly halted.

This could lead to droughts, famines, and potentially conflicts if these initiatives disrupt monsoon patterns that many nations in Asia and Africa rely upon for agriculture. It might also intensify storms or even allow one nation to “steal” rainfall from another.

In a concerning scenario known as “termination shock,” large-scale geoengineering might be implemented globally and then abruptly ceased due to political conflicts, potentially causing a rebound effect.

Without artificial cooling measures, the planet could swiftly and chaotically heat up, leading to consequences much worse than gradual warming. Another possibility is that geoengineering could cool certain parts of the Earth while neglecting others, exacerbating global inequalities.

However, none of these outcomes are guaranteed, which is why numerous scientists, along with a growing number of environmentalists, believe researching various geoengineering methods is crucial.

There remains a persistent concern about “moral hazard” – that if temporary solutions are introduced to obscure the effects of increasing carbon dioxide levels, it may lead the public to believe that continuing to burn fossil fuels is acceptable, worsening the root cause of the crisis.

A Startup Initiates Bold Actions

Geoengineering is typically divided into two categories, with one being more contentious than the other.

The first is already in progress: efforts to eliminate the excessive carbon dioxide humanity has released into the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.

The second is more theoretical – involving methods that some believe could backfire significantly.

This second type of geoengineering seeks alternative ways to artificially cool the Earth, compensating for the damage caused by greenhouse gases while simultaneously working to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Make Sunsets operates within this second category.

Some worry that if Make Sunsets’ solar geoengineering methods were ever applied on a larger scale, it could lead to the Earth’s temperature rising sharply if the sulfur dioxide interventions were halted.

Iseman, however, doesn’t view this as very controversial. He points out that humans already release large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion every year, but this occurs in the lower atmosphere where it can be harmful to health without effectively reflecting sunlight.

Make Sunsets targets the stratosphere, where the sulfate can remain for about a year before returning to the Earth’s surface.

They make sure to notify the Federal Aviation Administration before every launch with a Notice to Airmen, and they also record each balloon launch with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

By evening, the two co-founders of the modest startup had released two additional balloons for around 600 customers, who each pay to participate in what they view as a temporary measure rather than a permanent solution.

“One day, hopefully, this slight cooling will give us some leeway while we transition away from fossil fuel use,” said Iseman.

Financial Interests Shift the Landscape

A new trend has compelled some experts to reevaluate their perspectives on geoengineering: for-profit companies like Make Sunsets are now entering a space that was once dominated by academic research.

This raises lingering questions concerning regulation and accountability. Consequently, many scientists express a desire to engage with this ongoing development rather than stand by and watch.

“The emergence of for-profit entities is genuinely concerning. The idea of having profit-driven motives being prioritized over planetary health is alarming,” said Ricke. “There may be lobbying for technologies that are not necessarily beneficial for the environment simply because investors seek returns.”

The introduction of at least two companies intending to profit from geoengineering has escalated worries. The small-scale Make Sunsets has around 600 customers purchasing its “cooling credits,” funding its balloon launches.

An American-Israeli startup named Stardust Solutions has also emerged, having recently secured $15 million in funding, and now publicly seeking to develop a solar geoengineering product to sell to governments or international organizations.

As climate disasters increase, “people’s awareness of how climate change is impacting us is becoming more urgent,” noted Daniele Visioni, a Cornell University professor who has researched climate interventions for ten years.

The Sierra Club remains cautious about these interventions but feels “it could be beneficial to explore some of these options,” stated Patrick Drupp, director of climate policy and advocacy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council opposes the use of solar radiation management but advocates for established international standards for testing. However, they are open to “limited” outdoor experiments that have undergone independent evaluation.

A critical question is who gets to decide what actions can be taken, according to Visioni.

“The stratosphere is largely unregulated,” he stated. “What prevents a private individual from launching a balloon?”

Currently, the apparent answer is that there are no restrictions.