By Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network 

I recently celebrated my 5th anniversary at Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN), and I realized that, when I started here, I never could’ve imagined what an incredible journey it would be. From the life-long friendships I built to achieving historic climate victories that felt nearly impossible a generation ago.

Some moments still feel surreal — spending nearly two years organizing in West Virginia to pressure Senator Joe Manchin to support Build Back Better (the precursor to the Inflation Reduction Act), being one of six people sitting in the Senate Gallery to watch Vice President Kamala Harris cast the monumental tiebreaking vote to pass the historic Inflation Reduction Act (thank you Senator Chris Van Hollen), and leading a march and rally at EPA Headquarters to pressure the Biden Administration to finalize historic rules to reduce pollution from power plants. These are some of my fondest memories and proudest professional accomplishments that I will never forget.

However, this past year, it has been tough to watch many of our accomplishments as a climate community be swept away by the stroke of the presidential pen. In 2026, our fight looks different. I now organize rallies at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to protect basic climate science, advocate on Capitol Hill for common-sense investments into affordable and job-creating clean energy, and desperately push back against attacks on critical climate programs and laws from the hostile Trump Administration.

I am often asked what keeps me hopeful in spite of the political chaos and intensifying climate crisis. The answer is simple: my colleagues and science. First, CCAN’s state and local teams are achieving big victories to make up for federal backsliding. And second, solar geoengineering research. Yes, I said solar geoengineering research. 

Solar geoengineering or solar reflective methods (SRM) are activities intended to cool the Earth by temporarily reflecting 1-2% of incoming sunlight away from Earth. It’s no substitute for cutting carbon pollution, but it could help avoid the worst impacts of climate change as we complete the clean-energy transition. However, before decision-makers can make informed decisions on the uses of SRM, we need responsible and transparent research.   

I’m glad that, while CCAN continues to fight as hard as ever to decarbonize, we are also taking some time to think about what happens if decarbonization efforts are too little or too late to avoid the worst-case impacts of climate change. Coming up even a little short of our goals could mean tens of thousands of avoidable deaths, millions of people displaced, and trillions of dollars in global damages. That’s why we need trustworthy, transparent SRM research conducted in the public interest. 

I’ve now joined a new community of SRM research advocates who are small in number but passionate to solve the climate crisis, frustrated by Trump’s attacks on mitigation and adaptation efforts, and committed to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change. SRM research advocates understand better than most what’s at stake when we talk about SRM. The hopes, risks, and absolute need to understand the impacts of SRM before any future decision maker decides to use it.

In a world of uncertainty, it’s almost certain that global warming will cross the Paris Agreement goal of staying below 1.5°C of warming. Every tenth of a degree above that threshold reduces our understanding of our climate and increases the risks to our communities, economies, and way of life. What does that mean for our most vulnerable? What actions may future desperate leaders take to protect their communities from escalating risks of climate change? 

These are the questions that fuel SRM research. Academics and researchers across the globe are working tirelessly to answer how SRM might affect weather patterns, food systems, and health, but we need more data, resources, and trained scientists to truly understand the risks and benefits.    

As the planet nears and likely exceeds the 1.5°C Paris limit, understanding every tool available becomes urgent. We can’t afford to wait another decade to fund this work. Responsible, government-led research and open public dialogue are essential to ensure SRM decisions—if ever made—are informed, democratic, and ethical. 

I believe civil society can do two things at once: stay laser-focused on decarbonization AND researching SRM techniques in case we ever have to consider a plan B. Working at CCAN gives me great hope that we’re not just fighting the climate fights of today, but anticipating the challenges of tomorrow.