[Cross-posted from Slate]

By Albert C. Lin

This summer, Harvard researchers working on a project called Scopex were supposed to fly a literal trial balloon over Sweden. This would have been the first step toward testing a potential method to moderate global warming by releasing small quantities of particles into the atmosphere. Early on, Harvard established an independent advisory committee to provide advice on the science and risks of the proposed experiment, as well as on the need for stakeholder engagement. Recently, however, the Swedish Space Corporation canceled the flight in the wake of opposition from Swedish environmentalists, scientists, and indigenous groups, even though the first flight would have involved no experimental release of particles.

Unprecedented wildfires, storms, and floods make it clear that climate change has arrived. And as climate change worsens, there is growing interest in researching solar geoengineering — a cluster of proposed strategies for reflecting sunlight to reduce the Earth’s warming. For instance, Congress has begun to provide modest funding for modeling and observing stratospheric conditions potentially relevant to solar geoengineering proposals.

The Scopex researchers, who are privately funded, have expressed support for suspending test flights to allow for robust public engagement, and the experiment may still go forward. Nonetheless, the recent cancelation demonstrates that we need more public engagement on solar geoengineering research. Opponents of the Swedish test flights appear more worried about where this research might lead than about any individual test flight — and those worries can’t be ignored. Solar geoengineering research cannot succeed without robust governance and public engagement.

Two of the leading solar geoengineering proposals are stratospheric aerosol injection (to which Scopex is relevant) and marine cloud brightening. Inspired by the cooling effects observed after major volcanic eruptions, stratospheric aerosol injection would attempt to reflect incoming sunlight by distributing small particles high in the atmosphere. Marine cloud brightening, which is patterned after the “tracks” formed when water vapor condenses on particles in ship exhaust, would seek to increase the reflection of sunlight by low-lying clouds.

Those are the goals — but solar geoengineering strategies are not well understood. Each proposed technique comes with substantial questions of feasibility. For stratospheric aerosol injection, these questions include: Which materials should be used and in what quantity? Where and how should materials be released? And what happens to materials after they are released? For marine cloud brightening, the questions include: How do tiny particles interact with clouds? How might clouds be modified to reflect more light? And in what regions might this technique be effective? Researchers also know little about potential impacts on health, ecosystems, and society. Might solar geoengineering reduce crop yields, interfere with Asian and African monsoons, harm biodiversity, or hamper solar energy production?

The many questions surrounding solar geoengineering —including those we haven’t even thought to ask yet—underscore the need for a broad inquiry into its social, political, economic, and scientific dimensions. Yet such research itself raises further questions. What role should the public have in research processes, especially in outdoor experiments that could affect human populations? Might research create momentum for solar geoengineering and lead to deployment before it is appropriate? And could research undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by offering the misleading prospect of a quick and easy solution to climate change?

The concerns associated with solar geoengineering, the controversy raised by outdoor experiments like Scopex, and the planetary implications of solar geoengineering all point to the need for governance of solar geoengineering research. In this context, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine established a committee, on which I served, to develop a research agenda and recommend research governance approaches for solar geoengineering. Our recent report sets out recommendations geared toward facilitating the production of knowledge to reduce scientific and social uncertainties regarding solar geoengineering.

One key recommendation calls on the federal government, in coordination with other countries, to establish a transdisciplinary solar geoengineering research program that would develop knowledge to inform policy makers. At the same time, we also recommend that all solar geoengineering research be subject to robust governance—which is not the same thing as government. Funders of research, publishers of scientific journals, professional societies, international organizations, and solar geoengineering researchers themselves all have a role to play in attending to the physical and societal risks of research, fostering transparency, and enabling public engagement.

Mechanisms to govern solar geoengineering research should include permitting requirements for outdoor experiments, impact assessment and review processes, a research registry, public engagement efforts, and adherence by researchers and research sponsors to a code of conduct. Public engagement could take the form of citizen consultations in which nonexperts at various locations debate the same policy-related questions pertaining to solar geoengineering and individually vote for prepared answers to the questions posed. Code of conduct provisions should include commitments to make research activities and results public and to monitor and minimize potential adverse effects of research.  Furthermore, ongoing programmatic assessment of solar geoengineering research can evaluate the cumulative impacts of multiple experiments, consider the overall trajectory of research activities, and guard against the entrenchment of ineffective or dangerous technologies.

All of that will take time, money, and commitment. Unfortunately, the worsening impacts of climate change will only increase pressures on policy makers to consider solar geoengineering.

Robust governance is necessary both to facilitate solar geoengineering research and to curb its risks. Adherence to recommended procedures and limits on outdoor experiments can reduce physical risks. Transparency regarding the capabilities and limits of solar geoengineering can counter the potential for solar geoengineering research to detract from other climate efforts. And broad public engagement can improve the quality of research while building the social license to enable the research.

Ignoring solar geoengineering will not make it — or climate change — go away. Research — and robust governance of that research — are essential to making informed decisions about it.

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

[Cross-posted from Undark]

For much of the 20th century, asbestos — dubbed a “miracle mineral” for its strength and fire resistance — was ubiquitous in buildings, homes, and consumer products. But beginning in the 1970s, as the material was shown to cause cancer and respiratory illnesses, a combination of tort liability and regulation curbed its use in the U.S. For many, that awakening has been too little, too late. Thousands of Americans continue to die each year from asbestos-related diseases.

Today, we may be facing the next asbestos: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. Stain resistant, waterproof, and grease repellant, PFAS are widely used in nonstick cookware, food packaging, clothing, furniture, and fire retardants. Their best-known applications include Teflon, Scotchgard, and GORE-TEX. But for more than a decade now, PFAS have been linked to increased cancer risk, reduced fertility, immune system suppression, and stunted growth and learning.

Known as “forever chemicals” because they do not easily break down, PFAS have found their way into drinking water supplies and into a variety of foods, and almost all Americans have detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. Yet federal regulators have taken few measures to protect citizens from PFAS’s harms — and when they have acted, they’ve been seemingly a step behind at every turn. That must change.

To their credit, manufacturers have taken some steps to respond to concerns regarding PFAS. Industry largely phased out two of the most commonly used and extensively studied PFAS — perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — by 2002 and 2015, respectively. But both of these substances continue to seep from contaminated sites into the drinking water supplies of millions of Americans. And, for the most part, manufacturers simply replaced PFOA and PFOS with other PFAS chemicals that have similar structures, similar characteristics, and — scientists fear — similar health risks.

In theory, several environmental statutes — including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act — could be used to address at least some aspects of the problem. However, federal regulators have been slow to respond. In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advised drinking water system operators to take action whenever combined PFOA and PFOS concentrations exceed 70 parts per trillion. Operators were advised to conduct further sampling, inform consumers of the elevated concentrations and potential dangers, and limit the public’s exposure to tainted water supplies. But the agency’s advisories govern only those two chemicals and are not enforceable. In February 2019, the EPA announced that, by the end of the year, it will start the process for developing enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS levels in drinking water, though it’s unclear when the work will be completed.

As the EPA drags its feet, some states have begun to develop their own regulatory standards — and to file lawsuits against industry and the U.S. Department of Defense, which owns or operates hundreds of sites contaminated by PFAS-containing firefighting foam. In Congress, bipartisan support for legislative action is building. More than 30 PFAS-related bills have been introduced on the Hill, including proposals requiring the Defense Department to address water contamination at military bases and EPA to establish enforceable standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water within two years.

Although these developments are encouraging, PFAS contamination is a multifaceted problem that calls for a multifaceted response. So, as Congress pursues legislative solutions, there are several things it should keep in mind.

First, because PFAS comprises thousands of substances, a chemical-by-chemical approach to regulation is likely to fail. Hundreds of scientists have concluded that the structural similarities between PFOS and PFOA — for which the evidence of toxicity is clear cut — and other PFAS warrant caution in the use of all PFAS. Regulation of the various PFAS chemicals should not require definitive evidence of each individual substance’s toxicity.

Second, Congress should address not only the threat of present-day exposure to PFAS, but also harms from past exposure and risks of future exposure. It will be essential to identify and redress harms to those who have already been exposed to PFAS, to clean up contaminated sites and secure safe water supplies, and to prevent future contamination. In the cleanup process, establishing drinking water standards is only a first step. Water suppliers will likely require financial and technical assistance to achieve those standards — and basic fairness suggests that the companies responsible for the contamination should bear the costs. To prevent future contamination, Congress should limit PFAS use and promote non-PFAS alternatives.

Third, although drinking water contamination is the most pressing and significant pathway for PFAS exposure, people can also be exposed to PFAS through their work environments, contaminated foods, foods wrapped in PFAS-treated packaging, and various consumer products. It will be important to assess the risks associated with these alternative pathways and to develop strategies to deal with them.

The broad bipartisan support for action on PFAS reflects the urgency and importance of the substances’ known health hazards. Congress must act quickly — and wisely — to make sure PFAS doesn’t become the next asbestos.

Cross-posted from The Sacramento Bee.

Technology matters. It affects every aspect of our lives, sometimes becoming pervasive before we are even aware of it and have a chance to consent - or not. Those in charge of governing technology must adapt when innovation evolves faster than lawmaking and ensure that the public has a role.

Two seemingly unrelated headlines illustrate how new technology - widely and stealthily - has permeated our society: Edward Snowden's revelations of massive electronic surveillance and Washington state's failed ballot initiative to mandate labeling of genetically modified foods.

The NSA surveillance activities revealed by Snowden shocked the American public and the world. We live in a world of drones and hackers, a world where extensive surveillance is widely acknowledged as possible. But the reach of NSA surveillance, the agency's lack of restraint and the collusion of industry in furthering its activities still have stunned many Americans.

Voters in Washington state in November rejected an initiative that would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms or GMOs, just as California voters did a year earlier. These measures failed despite consistent survey results reporting that Americans overwhelmingly favor such labeling.

Some worry that these foods may not be safe; others find the idea of consuming such foods downright frightening. If labeling were required, shoppers would learn that most processed foods contain GMOs. They might be shocked to discover that 90 percent of the corn, soybeans and canola planted in this country is genetically modified.

The public might then ask, "Why didn't we know about this?" It's a question that can apply to many of the emerging technologies that are transforming our lives and the world around us.

Nanotechnology is generating new materials, new medicines and consumer products with new functionalities. Artificial intelligence is yielding an array of advances ranging from driverless cars to robotic surgeons. Synthetic biology is promising to enable the design of new species or the resurrection of extinct ones. And geoengineering, a set of technologically driven and unconventional proposals for countering the effects of climate change, is receiving growing attention in the wake of our collective failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Researchers have good reasons for pursuing such scientific knowledge. But societies often promote the widespread adoption of a promising new technology without seriously considering its broader consequences for society, individuals or the environment.

The uncertainty regarding the course of technological development and the consequences of technology adoption creates a "dilemma of technology control": When a technology is in its earliest phases, there is scant information about its consequences; however, once such information does become available, the technology has become too well-established to be adequately controlled.

Often, law struggles to keep pace with emerging technologies - a troubling reality when the harms that may result from using a technology are serious and irreversible.

Is the dilemma unresolvable? Not if society and governance institutions devote attention and resources to the problem.

In the case of GMOs, for example, carrying out studies of long-term health effects from GMO consumption would reduce public unease. Transparency in using the technology and genuine consideration of public concerns would also help.

Ultimately, laws must treat technology, health and the environment as fundamentally related. We must reorient lawmaking in a way that acknowledges the transformative power of technology, recognizes the consequences of its use, and incorporates public input and awareness throughout the technology development process. While we may not be able to quantify the risks or identify all the consequences, we often have a sense of the potential hazards and can try to learn whether those hazards are real.

Emerging technologies pose questions regarding what kind of world we want to live in and what kind of people we want to be. A great democracy wrestles with such issues openly and continuously.

President Obama’s State of the Union Address last Wednesday was, like many such speeches, full of generalities regarding the President’s policy priorities.  But there were also a few tasty tidbits for those wondering about the fate of climate change and energy legislation.  Not surprisingly, the President cast such legislation as a means of job-creation and argued for “incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy.”  More interestingly, the President went on to make clear his view that nuclear energy should be a critical component of clean energy initiatives.  While Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has been a steady advocate of nuclear power, the President’s statement was his most explicit endorsement yet of nuclear energy as a response to climate change.  Perhaps the statement was simply a reflection of the political landscape.  Although the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House last June contains few provisions specific to nuclear energy, the legislation currently being drafted in the Senate would remove barriers to and even promote new nuclear plant construction.  (For a brief comparison of Waxman-Markey with Senate legislation on this point, see here.)  Indeed, three of the key players in the Senate on climate change – John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham – have repeatedly declared that additional nuclear power is essential to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  All of this may give heartburn to many environmental groups, but nuclear energy may be a necessary pill for them to swallow if any climate change legislation is to be had in the near future.