Wolfe: Bans on cloud seeding and sunlight reflection would criminalize innovation

Should Texas lawmakers impede scientists working to understand and protect against extreme weather? The right answer is no.

When the Texas Legislature met in 2025, a bill that would have banned research on reflecting sunlight (known as solar radiation management, or SRM) to reduce extreme heat failed to advance through the legislative process. In Congress, Senator Ted Cruz was among senior lawmakers speaking up to defend measures to address droughts, like cloud seeding, which involves dispersing silver iodide into clouds to increase precipitation.

Nevertheless, bills to ban both technologies have been proliferating nationally – and even passed in Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana, likely driven by unfounded theories tying cloud seeding to so-called “chemtrails.”

The public deserves to know that chemicals released in the sky are safe. The good news is that we can meet those concerns without stifling innovations that may well keep us all safer.

Cloud seeding has been used for decades in Texas and elsewhere and is used in more than 50 countries around the world today without ill effects. Exhaustive reviews have confirmed it does not pose a threat. It does not meaningfully reduce rainfall in nearby areas, and because it increases rainfall only modestly – optimistically, by 15% -- does not threaten life or property.

Many western states in need of water make use of it, most notably Utah, which is trying to reverse the drying of the Great Salt Lake. Studies in North Dakota and Texas have confirmed that cloud seeding benefits agriculture. Intriguingly, cloud seeding is sometimes used to make hailstones smaller and less damaging. Texas suffers more property damage from hail than any other state- a fact reflected in insurance premiums.

Meanwhile, sunlight reflection – a technology that could reduce extreme heat – is not happening now but warrants study. With no operations underway, and heatwaves growing more common, it is far better to support science and develop sensible safeguards than rush forward with bans.

We could cool the weather in several ways, but ideas involve releasing shiny particles high in the atmosphere or dispersing a saltwater mist into clouds over the oceans. Much sunlight that reaches the earth is already naturally reflected, and sunlight reflection aims to increase that reflected light, thereby inducing a slight global cooling effect. This temporary cooling effect has been observed following volcanic eruptions that emit reflective particles.

Some, concerned about perceived climate change, favor imposing mandates to curb emissions. But rushed mandates could have destructive economic effects; McKinsey and others estimate that unduly rapidly transitioning would cost trillions of dollars. Texas- the energy capital of the world- would be especially hard hit.

If politicians concerned about global temperatures get their way and take action, sunlight reflection would allow a longer time for a free market transition, one driven by innovation and consumer demand, not mandates. It could be deployed at a vastly lower cost than a forced transition, and its effects would be only temporary.

To be fair to ban proponents, there could be risks, such as decreasing rainfall in some areas of the globe. More research is needed. Fortunately, small-scale experiments that do not affect weather can provide valuable information and there is time for lawmakers to decide if controls are needed.

That will also make sure we’re ready for challenges to come. Other countries, including China, are driving research now, and discussing international governance frameworks. The U.S. needs to make sure it has the knowledge and tools to protect its interests – not blind itself with bans as rivals surge ahead.