What geo-engineering projects are currently proposed or active in the UK as of 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The UK in 2025 is actively funding both outdoor experiments and modelling of solar radiation management (SRM) while continuing to develop standards and support for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) research: a £56.8m Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) portfolio and a separate ~£10–11m NERC programme underpin the wave of activity [1] [2] [3]. These projects are small‑scale, framed as cautious research, and sit alongside parliamentary scrutiny, public petitions and sharp scientific debate about risks, governance and whether SRM distracts from emissions cuts [2] [4] [5].
1. Aria’s funded outdoor SRM experiments: small, deliberate, controversial
The government‑backed Aria programme has announced funding for small‑scale outdoor experiments intended to provide “critical” data on solar geoengineering, making the UK one of the largest national funders of SRM research in 2025 [2] [1] [3]. Media reporting and institutional statements stress the trials will be rigorously assessed and limited in scope, and that details of specific projects were to be released following the initial programme announcement [1] [2]. Critics argue that any outdoor experimentation risks legitimising escalation to larger deployments and could be conducted abroad via Aria’s flexible funding, a point made forcefully in commentary in The Guardian that accused the agency of operating with too little oversight [5].
2. NERC and academic modelling, plus a £10m research cluster
Alongside Aria, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) funded roughly £10–11m for modelling and impact studies beginning in April 2025, supporting multiple UK universities and one in Norway to simulate SRM effects and run public engagement exercises [2] [6]. Cambridge’s Centre for Climate Repair and other teams emphasise modelling rather than field release for part of this funding, with projects explicitly set to study climate and ecosystem impacts and to inform governance conversations [6] [1].
3. Five trials and experimental emphases reported in specialist outlets
Reporting in The Conversation and other outlets summarised that five small trials were being funded to probe different SRM processes, including investigations into how candidate compounds might behave in the stratosphere and aerosol‑like cooling mechanisms that mimic volcanic effects [7]. One funded strand will fly drones through volcanic plumes to measure particle effects — an approach framed as leveraging natural analogues to better understand aerosol behaviour [1].
4. Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) remains a parallel, more established track
Parliamentary debates and government policy distinguish SRM from engineered greenhouse gas removals, and the UK continues to develop GGR standards, monitoring and verification frameworks for carbon removals such as direct air capture and BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), signalling these as separate, more readily regulated interventions in the UK’s net‑zero strategy [4] [8] [9].
5. Governance, public dialogue and political scrutiny are central battlegrounds
Officials and researchers repeatedly frame the programmes as research-only and stress the absence of any deployment decision, while calls for moratoria and for international governance are a consistent feature of commentary and expert criticism [6] [2] [1]. A high‑profile public petition gathered substantial signatures and prompted parliamentary debate, underscoring public unease and the political salience of transparency, standards and ethical oversight [4] [8].
6. Debate, risks and agendas: why the split in expert opinion matters
Supporters argue the research is a prudent insurance policy given accelerating heat records and the global failure to cut emissions, while opponents characterise SRM as potentially dangerous, a distraction from mitigation, and prone to geopolitical conflict if deployment were ever contemplated — concerns reflected across scientific commentary, investigative reporting and opinion pieces [1] [5] [10]. Observers note possible institutional agendas: Aria’s remit to fund high‑risk research, the relative speed of its commitments compared with more conservative funders, and the potential for funding to attract projects or trials outside strict UK oversight [5] [3].
Conclusion: in 2025 the UK’s geoengineering landscape is active but circumscribed — a mixed portfolio of Aria‑backed outdoor SRM tests, NERC‑funded modelling and impact studies, drone and plume measurement projects, and a parallel emphasis on GGR standards — all operating amid intense scrutiny, contested science and calls for robust international governance [1] [2] [6] [4] [7].