Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the major organizations and governments funding current SRM field experiments?
Executive summary
Major funders of current SRM (solar radiation management) research and small-scale field work include UK government bodies via ARIA’s “Exploring Climate Cooling” programme (a £56.8m pot with ~£45m awarded in one round), philanthropic foundations such as the Simons Foundation and the LAD Climate Fund supporting SRM-focused programs and data platforms, and smaller dedicated funds and NGOs (Degrees Initiative, EDF/Reflective calls). Coverage is uneven: reporting and trackers (SRM360) say global SRM funding now exceeds ~$30m annually with philanthropy supplying roughly 48% and governments about 42% [1] [2] [3].
1. UK government: ARIA’s big push and contested public money
The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is the clearest government funder named in current reporting: ARIA’s “Exploring Climate Cooling” programme is cited as a £56.8 million initiative, and SRM-focused awards from that programme accounted for tens of millions (reports note £45M awarded in one announcement) and include small-scale outdoor experiments among funded activities [1] [4] [3]. Some outlets and advocacy groups interpret this as a £50M commitment to field trials and have raised governance and transparency objections [5] [6]. Critics including named climate scientists argued publicly against ARIA funding for outdoor SRM work [1].
2. Philanthropy and research foundations: Simons Foundation, LAD Climate Fund, others
Philanthropic actors are prominent. The Simons Foundation launched an SRM program funding collaborative research and small-scale lab and observational projects, hosting an SRM annual meeting and supporting projects on possible SAI materials and fundamentals [7] [8]. SRM360 — a research/monitoring hub meant to clarify SRM funding — is supported by the LAD Climate Fund and reports on funding flows and field experiments [2]. Independent trackers cited by SRM360 say philanthropic contributions have outpaced government funding since 2020 [3] [2].
3. NGOs and targeted funds: Degrees Initiative, EDF, Reflective and regional grants
Civil-society groups and targeted funds are both funders and conveners: Degrees (DEGREES Initiative) runs grant programs aimed at researchers in the Global South and a Socio-Political Fund to build Southern capacity for SRM research (grants up to ~$45k for teams) [9] [10]. EDF and Reflective are running calls for SRM proposals focused on specific impacts or regions [3]. Geoengineering Monitor documents other fund-supported projects historically tied to SRM field trials (e.g., FICER-backed work like MCBP and SCoPEx) [11].
4. Research councils and university consortia: NERC and UK university partnerships
National research funders are engaged mostly in modelling and assessment rather than outdoor releases. For example, NERC (UK) is funding projects to model SRM impacts—Cambridge, Exeter and Imperial are named partners—and commissioning public dialogues, with projects starting in 2025 and explicit statements that some work will be modelling (not outdoor experiments) [12]. This suggests a split within public funding between experimental field work (ARIA) and modelling/social engagement (NERC) [12] [1].
5. What counts as “field experiments” — small-scale, lab, or outdoor releases?
Available reporting distinguishes lab/confined experiments, passive atmospheric observations and computer models from “small-scale outdoor experiments” intended to probe processes [7] [1]. SRM360 and related reporting say only a few outdoor experiments have occurred to date, and some planned trials were cancelled under public pressure; ARIA explicitly included small outdoor experiments in its call, which raised controversy [1] [4] [3].
6. Scale, money and geopolitical skew — what the numbers and trackers say
Trackers cited by SRM360 estimate global SRM funding at over $30 million per year, with philanthropy supplying about 48% and governments about 42%, and the Global North (notably the U.K., U.S., Australia) dominating funding while the Global South gets a disproportionately small share [3] [2]. The Simons and ARIA headline figures are the largest single-program commitments in recent reporting [1] [8].
7. Disagreements, governance concerns and missing details
There is clear disagreement in reporting: some outlets frame ARIA’s money as a decisive government commitment to field trials [5] [6], while mainstream trackers and academic sites emphasize a mix of lab, modelling and limited outdoor experiments and call for public dialogue and governance measures [1] [12] [2]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive, up-to-date public ledger of every SRM experiment and every funder — SRM360 aims to fill that gap but coverage remains partial [2] [3].
Conclusion — what readers should take away
Current SRM funding is a patchwork of a few large, visible commitments (notably the UK’s ARIA programme), philanthropic programs (Simons, LAD-backed SRM360) and multiple smaller NGO or regional grant calls (Degrees, EDF, Reflective). Numbers and characterizations vary across sources; trackers point to ~ $30M+/year and a philanthropic tilt, but details on exact field experiment funding and approvals remain dispersed and contested [3] [1] [2].