Greene wants to ban ‘weather modification,’ but ignorance is the real crime

In 1946, a chemist researching how to prevent ice from forming on planes accidentally discovered “cloud seeding” — a way to make clouds bigger, or encourage them to release more rain. 

Experimentation followed, and today, cloud-seeding is used in Texas, North Dakota and states across the West to combat drought and support irrigation. In Idaho, cloud seeding augments water supply for about $3.50 per acre-foot, relative to $20 per acre-foot for other options — a good outcome.

But it might never have happened if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) had been in office 80 years ago. Greene has introduced legislation that would criminalize a broad range of meteorological and climate research, including proven, beneficial practices like cloud seeding, under the guise of preventing  "weather modification.” 

This isn't a one-off bill, and it’s not really about weather modification. It’s part of a broader, dangerous effort to muzzle scientists.

Columbia University’s Sabin Center identifies more than 600 discrete government attempts to restrict or prohibit scientific research, education or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information, since the November 2016 election. Of these, two-thirds— nearly 400 separate actions over the past decade — target climate scientists. 

Greene’s bill is the latest illustration of a deeply worrying trend.

Research can certainly involve risk. But understanding and managing that risk in a controlled setting is far better than being unprepared in the face of real-world catastrophe. 

If we don’t study pathogens, we can’t prevent pandemics. And if we don’t study weather modification or related strategies like geoengineering (i.e., the suite of techniques that seek to influence natural systems), we are giving up the possibility of tools that could help us forestall climate disasters.

When it comes to weather modification and geoengineering, we need to understand what’s possible, what’s dangerous and how technologies might be governed. 

Sunlight reflection, for instance, is a concept that involves reflecting a tiny percentage of sunlight to cool the earth. Though the concept of sunlight reflection has been around for a while, it is still little more than a concept; no one is proposing large-scale deployment yet.

But there is a real chance that sunlight reflection could safely reduce global temperatures, slowing the escalation of extreme weather events and buying us more time to build out the clean energy infrastructure we need to halt climate change once and for all.

Sunlight reflection, and weather modification and geoengineering more broadly, must be studied with rigorous oversight, public engagement and strong international norms. This is not an endorsement that we should do it, but we can’t afford to approach these questions with ignorance or ideology. 

The U.S., with its long history of leading on innovation, is ideally positioned to responsibly shape the fields of weather modification and geoengineering research. But if we prohibit it, as Florida and other states have done and Greene proposes to do nationally, we will cede the space to countries like China.

Arguments for prohibiting all research on weather modification and geoengineering are based on misinformation and fear, not facts. They conflate real science, like sunlight reflection and cloud seeding, with debunked conspiracies like chemtrails. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s information hub on weather modification and geoengineering is an example of fact-first engagement that state governments and Congress would do well to emulate, and that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin should continue to prioritize. 

Greene claims to have researched weather modification for months, yet her bill would make real scientific research on the topic a felony. Many states considering bills like Greene’s have rejected them, demonstrating  bipartisan resistance to stifling science. Still, the fact that we have to fight these fights at all is deeply consequential.

Criminalizing research doesn’t solve problems, it papers over real ones. Scientific inquiry is not the same as advocating for action. And studying a tool doesn’t mean using it, it means understanding it — its opportunities, risks and limits. 

In a hotter, more volatile world, failing to prepare is its own kind of crime.

Jedidah Isler, Ph.D., is chief science officer at the Federation of American Scientists.