By my estimate, fewer than a thousand people globally are working on cooling interventions. Now the Climate Emergencies Forum is helping this tiny ecosystem coordinate efforts.
This is a great reflection — thanks for capturing the scale mismatch so clearly. One piece I’d add: while most of the field is still in the research and coordination phase, Make Sunsets is already running real deployments, showing what’s physically possible today. That helps create the “permission space” you highlight as missing.
It reminds me of AI. The first GPT models were dismissed as toys — yet here we are at version 5, transforming entire industries. That leap never would’ve happened if OpenAI hadn’t shown the world what was possible early on. In contrast, SRM research/governance today feels a lot like the academic AI labs that relied on grad students or MTurk to poorly label data and Model UN theatre writing about what-ifs. What we actually need is clean in-situ data — the kind that only comes from real deployments — to feed the models and make better predictions on the impact of SAI.
I know not everyone agrees with what you guys are doing, as they see it as potentially poisoning the well. But I also think this field requires the efforts of many different disciplines, including entrepreneurs, in order to be successful.
The well is already poisoned — not by small deployments like ours, but by decades of paralysis. Scientists have known about SAI’s potential since the 1970s. In that time, we’ve seen little more than new models and new funding cycles. Meanwhile, the world keeps getting hotter.
If we don’t produce real results soon, SAI risks going the way of carbon removal — dominated by middlemen, overly cautious committees, and NIMBYs until governments eventually DOGE the whole industry due to what they will see as waste.
Part of the problem is communication. Instead of explaining actual risks and tradeoffs, too many scientists lean on “nightmare fuel” scenarios that grab headlines, bring in grants, and justify more modeling. The media amplifies that, so the public walks away believing it’s all acid rain, ozone holes, and crop collapse — when in reality, outcomes depend heavily on quantities and locations of aerosols. Fear goes up, understanding goes down.
I understand the role of modeling and caution. But the world is burning while we debate simulations. What’s missing is real-world data, cultural permission, and entrepreneurial urgency. That’s what we’re trying to bring.
Dear Paul, Your observations and analysis of the situation, and what needs to be done, is superb.
The Healthy Planet Action Coalition is convening a major global online conference on October 15 and 16 on the topic: The Global Heating Emergency. Preventing 2 degrees: What’s the Plan?
The key points in your article would be extremely pertinent for the final session of the event.
Could you join us and make a 10 minute presentation in that session?
Let’s jump on a call ASAP to discuss the possibility.
See also the website of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition at https//healthyplanetaction.org.
We are a group of 250 scientists, engineers and policy influencers that share your conclusion that the maths don’t add up, and that humanity needs a new, comprehensive climate plan that integrates emissions reductions, greenhouse gas removals, and near-term climate cooling interventions as the only plausible approach to addressing the global heating emergency.
Hi Paul, I fully support your analysis here with one caveat. The missing element within geoengineering advocacy is a failure to analyse how this topic sits against the growing polarisation of US and world politics. It is broadly assumed that geoengineering sits within the progressive rather than the conservative camp because it rests on scientific knowledge and moral concern rather than ignorant selfish blindness. I believe this assumption is a mistake. The heat crisis we face will not be solved by attacking the fossil fuel industry, or by unrealistic decarbonisation advocacy that only has the effect of causing deniers to double down. New emissions do not really make a significant difference to the short term risk of tipping points, compared to the rapid impact of albedo collapse. The ~2% darkening of the planet this century is almost entirely ignored in the climate community. Albedo loss has caused five times as much warming as new emissions in the last decade, but does not even rate a mention on the IPCC policy agenda. A strategic realignment, engaging the industries who stand to lost most from heat, is needed. These industries include insurance, agriculture, energy, shipping, tourism, banking and others. They can be convinced to support solar geoengineering if it is aligned with a realistic carbon policy, focused on medium-term large scale removals rather than an immediate energy transition. I see little effort to reach out to these potential partners to engage in dialogue, fundraising, lobbying and research. An Albedo Accord is needed on the model of the Montreal Protocol. For the leftists you mentioned who decry that strategy, it is essential to explain that their moral hazard argument is grossly unscientific and immoral, condemning the world to mass extinction, system collapse and suffering. The situation is that the renewable energy industry has captured climate advocacy, subordinating the need for planetary cooling beneath its commercial interests. Geoengineering offers a path to decouple climate policy from energy. This is a paradigm shift that people have not even begun to discuss.
However, the world is approaching a tipping point, where it may be impossible to mitigate Climate Change.
So in a world where there will be limited resources to avert a catastrophe, given the fact that Nature-Based Solutions are among the least costly, we and the world need to know what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
So, I hope you will join me in urging that governments, universities and research institutions quickly conduct the credible analyses required.
Paul, this was a fascinating read. I 100% agree that trust and social infrastructure are crucial to syncing up CDR and geoengineering on a political level with what physics is demanding.
On your worrying point about the size of the industry’s workforce: I graduated with my degree in climate and entrepreneurship last year, with hopes and aspirations of joining this industry. Despite my unflinching efforts I’ve felt locked out; haven’t been able to land a job. Nada. I hope my situation isn’t a microcosm for the industry at large, but any advice you have would be greatly appreciated. thanks as always, Harrison :)
Hey Harrison, I hear you on this. When it's so small, there are so few opportunities, and with climate generally being such a mission-driven focus, there tends to be a lot of very high quality competition for roles. Two sources I'd point you to: you probably already know about ClimateBase, but that's the best job board for this space https://climatebase.org
A really cogent analysis, so helpful - thanks for taking the time to write this up
This is a great reflection — thanks for capturing the scale mismatch so clearly. One piece I’d add: while most of the field is still in the research and coordination phase, Make Sunsets is already running real deployments, showing what’s physically possible today. That helps create the “permission space” you highlight as missing.
It reminds me of AI. The first GPT models were dismissed as toys — yet here we are at version 5, transforming entire industries. That leap never would’ve happened if OpenAI hadn’t shown the world what was possible early on. In contrast, SRM research/governance today feels a lot like the academic AI labs that relied on grad students or MTurk to poorly label data and Model UN theatre writing about what-ifs. What we actually need is clean in-situ data — the kind that only comes from real deployments — to feed the models and make better predictions on the impact of SAI.
I know not everyone agrees with what you guys are doing, as they see it as potentially poisoning the well. But I also think this field requires the efforts of many different disciplines, including entrepreneurs, in order to be successful.
The well is already poisoned — not by small deployments like ours, but by decades of paralysis. Scientists have known about SAI’s potential since the 1970s. In that time, we’ve seen little more than new models and new funding cycles. Meanwhile, the world keeps getting hotter.
If we don’t produce real results soon, SAI risks going the way of carbon removal — dominated by middlemen, overly cautious committees, and NIMBYs until governments eventually DOGE the whole industry due to what they will see as waste.
Part of the problem is communication. Instead of explaining actual risks and tradeoffs, too many scientists lean on “nightmare fuel” scenarios that grab headlines, bring in grants, and justify more modeling. The media amplifies that, so the public walks away believing it’s all acid rain, ozone holes, and crop collapse — when in reality, outcomes depend heavily on quantities and locations of aerosols. Fear goes up, understanding goes down.
I understand the role of modeling and caution. But the world is burning while we debate simulations. What’s missing is real-world data, cultural permission, and entrepreneurial urgency. That’s what we’re trying to bring.
Dear Paul, Your observations and analysis of the situation, and what needs to be done, is superb.
The Healthy Planet Action Coalition is convening a major global online conference on October 15 and 16 on the topic: The Global Heating Emergency. Preventing 2 degrees: What’s the Plan?
The key points in your article would be extremely pertinent for the final session of the event.
Could you join us and make a 10 minute presentation in that session?
See www.preventing2degrees.org
Let’s jump on a call ASAP to discuss the possibility.
See also the website of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition at https//healthyplanetaction.org.
We are a group of 250 scientists, engineers and policy influencers that share your conclusion that the maths don’t add up, and that humanity needs a new, comprehensive climate plan that integrates emissions reductions, greenhouse gas removals, and near-term climate cooling interventions as the only plausible approach to addressing the global heating emergency.
We are working on many aspects if the challenge
My email address is dennis.garrity@evergreening.org.
I hope that you can get in touch with me ASAP to discuss your role in this online conference.
Dennis Garrity
Chair, Healthy Planet Action Coalition
Hi Paul, I fully support your analysis here with one caveat. The missing element within geoengineering advocacy is a failure to analyse how this topic sits against the growing polarisation of US and world politics. It is broadly assumed that geoengineering sits within the progressive rather than the conservative camp because it rests on scientific knowledge and moral concern rather than ignorant selfish blindness. I believe this assumption is a mistake. The heat crisis we face will not be solved by attacking the fossil fuel industry, or by unrealistic decarbonisation advocacy that only has the effect of causing deniers to double down. New emissions do not really make a significant difference to the short term risk of tipping points, compared to the rapid impact of albedo collapse. The ~2% darkening of the planet this century is almost entirely ignored in the climate community. Albedo loss has caused five times as much warming as new emissions in the last decade, but does not even rate a mention on the IPCC policy agenda. A strategic realignment, engaging the industries who stand to lost most from heat, is needed. These industries include insurance, agriculture, energy, shipping, tourism, banking and others. They can be convinced to support solar geoengineering if it is aligned with a realistic carbon policy, focused on medium-term large scale removals rather than an immediate energy transition. I see little effort to reach out to these potential partners to engage in dialogue, fundraising, lobbying and research. An Albedo Accord is needed on the model of the Montreal Protocol. For the leftists you mentioned who decry that strategy, it is essential to explain that their moral hazard argument is grossly unscientific and immoral, condemning the world to mass extinction, system collapse and suffering. The situation is that the renewable energy industry has captured climate advocacy, subordinating the need for planetary cooling beneath its commercial interests. Geoengineering offers a path to decouple climate policy from energy. This is a paradigm shift that people have not even begun to discuss.
Thanks for your message.
However, the world is approaching a tipping point, where it may be impossible to mitigate Climate Change.
So in a world where there will be limited resources to avert a catastrophe, given the fact that Nature-Based Solutions are among the least costly, we and the world need to know what are the top 10 plants and trees which will capture the most CO 2/Acre/5,10 & 15-Year Periods.
So, I hope you will join me in urging that governments, universities and research institutions quickly conduct the credible analyses required.
Regards,
Joe
Joseph J. James, President
Agri-Tech Producers LLC
Cell: (803) 413-6801
Email: josephjjames@bellsouth.net
Website: https://www.agri-techproducers.biz
Paul, this was a fascinating read. I 100% agree that trust and social infrastructure are crucial to syncing up CDR and geoengineering on a political level with what physics is demanding.
On your worrying point about the size of the industry’s workforce: I graduated with my degree in climate and entrepreneurship last year, with hopes and aspirations of joining this industry. Despite my unflinching efforts I’ve felt locked out; haven’t been able to land a job. Nada. I hope my situation isn’t a microcosm for the industry at large, but any advice you have would be greatly appreciated. thanks as always, Harrison :)
Hey Harrison, I hear you on this. When it's so small, there are so few opportunities, and with climate generally being such a mission-driven focus, there tends to be a lot of very high quality competition for roles. Two sources I'd point you to: you probably already know about ClimateBase, but that's the best job board for this space https://climatebase.org
And the second is this article by Peter Olivier: https://substack.com/home/post/p-165870054 (which also links to this amazing resource: https://nicolekelner.notion.site/So-You-Want-to-Work-in-Climate-1e5f92ed0a978091960fc1645d09d469 )
Good luck!
thanks Paul! I’ll dig into this