SilverLining’s Geoengineering Techno-Optimism Is Distracting From Real Climate Solutions

Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and/or follow us on Google News!

Last Updated on: 19th May 2025, 03:28 am

Organizations promoting utopian techno-optimism have long appealed to policymakers and investors by offering simplistic technological escapes from complex environmental challenges. SilverLining, a geoengineering-focused non-profit, represents exactly this kind of appeal. It’s triggered me because of its aggressive PR efforts that have put its founder on influential media outlets, including ones which I’ve been on and tend to respect the principals.

Emerging from the ideological soil cultivated by ecomodernist institutions like the Breakthrough Institute, SilverLining exemplifies a persistent and problematic tendency within climate advocacy: prioritizing speculative, hypothetically disruptive technologies at the expense of rapidly deploying proven solutions. As the climate emergency intensifies, the stakes of this preference become ever clearer. SilverLining’s promotion of geoengineering initiatives such as solar radiation management and marine cloud brightening reinforces the dangerous myth that humanity can technologically innovate its way out of the climate crisis, effectively providing a tempting “get out of jail free card” for policymakers hesitant to confront fossil fuel dependencies.

SilverLining’s intellectual roots are grounded in the ecomodernist worldview, notably articulated in the far too influential but ultimately toothless Ecomodernist Manifesto. Central to ecomodernism is the notion that human ingenuity and technological progress, rather than limits or behavioral shifts, are key to sustainable coexistence with the natural environment.

Rachel Pritzker, a prominent backer and advisor of SilverLining, is a notable figure within this movement, chairing the board of the Breakthrough Institute itself. As an heiress to the substantial Pritzker family fortune, Pritzker embodies the troubling intersection of immense wealth, detachment from practical climate realities, and an unwavering faith in technological quick-fixes. As president of the Pritzker Innovation Fund and chair of the Breakthrough Institute, she channels significant financial resources into promoting unlikely to be useful climate interventions like geoengineering and advanced nuclear reactors, usually dismissing or undervaluing proven solutions such as wind, solar, electrification, and efficiency.

The Breakthrough Institute persistently argues against the feasibility of achieving decarbonization through rapid deployment of renewable energy, transmission infrastructure, electrification, and efficiency, despite significant and increasing evidence supporting their effectiveness. Breakthrough and its affiliates instead consistently advocate for technologies with uncertain timelines, such as small modular nuclear reactors, carbon capture and storage, and, critically, geoengineering solutions.

Michael Shellenberger, once prominently affiliated with the Breakthrough Institute, has spun off into increasingly controversial territory with his new platform, Environmental Progress. Initially positioning itself as an advocate for nuclear energy, Environmental Progress rapidly evolved into a contrarian voice within climate discourse, repeatedly criticizing renewable energy technologies like wind and solar as ineffective or even harmful. Shellenberger frequently frames renewables as unreliable, environmentally damaging, and economically wasteful, deploying carefully selected anecdotes to overshadow the robust body of evidence confirming their effectiveness and declining costs.

In recent years, Shellenberger’s rhetoric has shifted further, embracing outright climate skepticism by downplaying the severity of climate impacts. He now argues explicitly that climate change, while real, is not the existential threat portrayed by scientists and mainstream organizations. His claims suggest that climate risks have been exaggerated, framing international climate policies as misguided and unnecessarily costly. This trajectory—from nuclear advocacy to renewable criticism and ultimately climate minimization—reflects a troubling drift toward arguments increasingly aligned with fossil fuel interests, sowing confusion and delay rather than advancing genuine climate solutions. Basically, his preferred solution isn’t a great one for the real problem at hand, so he’s pivoted to denying the problem, not picking a different solution.

SilverLining’s approach mirrors these patterns of emphasizing speculative technologies instead of real solutions. Kelly Wanser, SilverLining’s executive director, transitioned from a successful career as a tech executive—previously leading data networking startup Luminus Networks—to become an advocate for marine cloud brightening, a controversial geoengineering technology aimed at reflecting sunlight to cool the planet. Building upon her early efforts with cloud brightening experiments, Wanser now spearheads broader advocacy for solar geoengineering research through SilverLining, pushing for significant public investment and policy support.

SilverLining’s portfolio of initiatives centers on solar geoengineering methods, including marine cloud brightening and stratospheric aerosol injection. SilverLining provided substantial support for marine cloud brightening field trials conducted off the California coast, in collaboration with the University of Washington. These experiments, involving spraying fine salt particles into marine clouds to increase their reflectivity and thereby cool the Earth’s surface, attracted significant backlash from local communities and civil society groups. The strong public and institutional pushback, citing environmental risks, governance concerns, and ethical implications, resulted in halting the trials, highlighting the fraught nature of such speculative interventions.

Yet despite setbacks and criticisms, SilverLining continues to pursue and advocate for geoengineering. It has strategically lobbied U.S. policymakers to direct public funding towards geoengineering research. In one recent lobbying effort, the organization urged Congress and the Biden administration to create dedicated research programs into sunlight reflection and stratospheric aerosol injection. In the 2024 election cycle, SilverLining significantly increased its lobbying expenditures, spending $420,000.

These advocacy campaigns are not minor endeavors; SilverLining’s lobbying expenditures have surpassed those of larger environmental groups like the World Resources Institute and Clean Air Task Force, which typically focus on accelerating deployment of proven technologies. SilverLining has achieved notable visibility across various media platforms, reflecting a concerted public relations effort to promote its geoengineering initiatives. Wanser has been featured on Michael Liebreich’s “Cleaning Up” podcast, a platform known for in-depth discussions on clean energy and climate leadership, where she elaborated on the organization’s climate intervention strategies with host Byrony Worthington. Beyond influential but specialized outlets, SilverLining’s work has gained attention in mainstream media, including coverage by the BBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. This widespread media presence underscores SilverLining’s communication efforts to shape public and policy discourse on geoengineering as a viable component of climate response.

This focus on geoengineering distracts from more immediate and essential climate actions. Many in the scientific community and civil society warn that normalizing geoengineering research and discourse creates a troubling moral hazard. By presenting the possibility of a technological fix, policymakers and industries feel less pressure to urgently pursue emissions reductions. Consequently, geoengineering, framed as insurance against climate disaster, lowers the political and economic incentive to transition away from fossil fuels quickly. Critics rightly argue that deploying existing solutions—like solar, wind, batteries, heat pumps, grid expansions, and electric vehicles—is not only achievable but essential and under leveraged. Proven technologies already exist at scale, cost-effectively replacing fossil fuel infrastructure, and rapidly decreasing emissions.

This technological fixation reflects the preferences of SilverLining’s core funders—wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, tech billionaires, and venture capitalists whose business models favor disruptive innovation. Key financial backers, such as Lowercarbon Capital and high-profile investors like Chris Sacca, demonstrate a clear preference for speculative technologies offering high-risk, high-reward potential, rather than incremental but certain progress through existing solutions.

This funding environment further perpetuates the allure of innovation-first narratives. Funders are closely tied to a Silicon Valley worldview, inherently skeptical about solutions that are not disruptive or “transformative” in the venture capital sense. This mindset systematically undervalues incremental yet essential steps, such as grid modernization, widespread energy efficiency improvements, or accelerated electrification, that lack the glamour or novelty demanded by the venture capital model. Let’s not forget that Silicon Valley has spawned a lot of Trump supporting billionaires in recent years, notably Musk and Thiel, core to Paypal before spinning off into increasingly dystopian pursuits.

The Oxford Principles on Geoengineering, established in 2009, provide clear ethical and governance guidelines emphasizing transparency, public participation, accountability, and independent assessment for any geoengineering research or deployment. These principles explicitly demand inclusive decision-making processes and insist upon comprehensive risk assessments and transparent governance frameworks before pursuing potentially irreversible interventions. Despite SilverLining’s advocacy for solar radiation management and related geoengineering strategies, the organization has been criticized for insufficiently embracing these fundamental governance norms. SilverLining’s push for rapid policy adoption, substantial lobbying, and support of controversial field experiments like marine cloud brightening has occurred largely without the broad, participatory processes advocated by the Oxford Principles. Critics argue that SilverLining’s approach has been overly technocratic and insufficiently attentive to global equity and inclusive governance, thereby risking public backlash, ethical pitfalls, and geopolitical tensions.

The cumulative effect of SilverLining’s biases are evident when examining its outputs and public discourse. Rather than actively supporting grassroots initiatives, policy advocacy for renewable deployment, or projects accelerating efficiency and electrification, SilverLining remains firmly rooted in scientific experiments and high-level lobbying for geoengineering research. This deliberate orientation is problematic because the climate emergency demands rapid and immediate deployment of known, effective solutions.

The IPCC and International Energy Agency reports emphasize clearly that humanity already has the tools necessary to dramatically cut emissions within this critical decade. Solar and wind energy are cheaper, faster, and safer solutions that carry none of the governance, ethical, or ecological uncertainties inherent to geoengineering. Ignoring this practical and immediate approach in favor of speculative technological fixes is not merely impractical; it risks squandering crucial time, money, and political capital needed for proven solutions.

The history of ecomodernist flavored techno-optimistic approaches to climate change is littered with cautionary tales. Ecomodernism’s dalliances with nuclear fission, carbon capture, algae biofuels, and advanced nuclear reactors illustrate repeated failures to deliver scalable, timely climate solutions. Each of these ambitious proposals drew substantial funding, media attention, and policy support yet persistently failed to reach the necessary scales or cost reductions. While innovation remains vital to addressing climate change, these examples underscore the critical need to balance technological optimism with pragmatic realism, prioritizing solutions that can be implemented rapidly, widely, and affordably today.

I have a couple of frameworks for pragmatic techno-optimism, and ecomodernism’s solutions fail the basic tests time after time. Silverlining’s love of geoengineering is no different.

The climate community already knows what works. The rapid deployment of solar and wind power, comprehensive transmission buildouts, grid-scale and distributed battery storage, widespread electrification of buildings, transport, and industry, and aggressive energy efficiency measures all have proven, measurable impacts. Yet organizations like SilverLining continue diverting attention and resources toward high-tech, speculative, uncertain, and potentially dangerous interventions. The persistent fascination with geoengineering and similar disruptive innovations ultimately diverts necessary focus away from the true urgency—scaling solutions already proven to cut emissions effectively.

SilverLining’s approach aligns precisely with the historical pattern of ecomodernist miscalculations. Its advocacy and funding preferences continue to prioritize speculative techno-fixes over proven, ready-to-deploy climate solutions. By promoting geoengineering and related technologies as plausible near-term strategies, SilverLining perpetuates the dangerous illusion that we can innovate our way out of the climate crisis without confronting its underlying drivers—fossil fuel dependence and overconsumption.

The global climate emergency requires that we swiftly deploy what works. Solar, wind, batteries, transmission infrastructure, and electrification represent available, affordable, proven solutions. The greatest danger now is not the absence of effective solutions but the willingness of influential organizations to entertain speculative distractions at a time when every month of delay costs dearly in lives, ecosystems, and global stability. SilverLining’s techno-optimist bias may be well-intentioned, but the climate crisis demands immediate action, not more unproven escapes.