LONDON, May 7, 2025 – The United Kingdom’s Research and Development funding agency ARIA today unveiled information about the first projects to receive funding under its controversial £56.8 million solar geoengineering program. The Center for International Environmental Law has cautioned that these risky initiatives, including five different projects conducting outdoor experiments, could violate the precautionary principle and must be halted to safeguard both people and the planet.
The Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA)’s program thesis Exploring Options for Actively Cooling the Earth, published last year, outlines the agency’s intention to prioritize funding outdoor field trials of various solar geoengineering interventions.
While the document states that “ARIA will not fund experiments where the activities proposed are prohibited by domestic or international law,” geoengineering is subject to a de facto moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which the UK is a party to.
According to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, deployment of geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”.
The news of ARIA’s first funded projects comes amid growing political momentum for a Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement. Countries across Africa, Europe, Latin America, and the Pacific have signaled their support for such an initiative, which is additionally backed by over 500 multidisciplinary academics and almost 2000 civil society organizations.
CIEL Geoengineering Campaign Manager Mary Church issued the following statement:
“Solar geoengineering is inherently unpredictable and risks breaking further an already broken climate system. Solar geoengineering technologies are impossible to test for intended and unintended consequences without large-scale deployment, risking lock-in of harmful and potentially irreversible impacts. Conducting small-scale experiments risks normalizing highly controversial theories and accelerating technological development, creating a slippery slope toward full-scale deployment.
“Solar geoengineering involves fighting pollution with pollution, under scenarios that propose deployment over hundreds of years, putting an unacceptable burden on future generations, and likely being controlled by a handful of major powers and corporations.
“The UK Government risks triggering a costly, dangerous, and distracting race to develop technologies that should never be used. Even experimenting with these technologies could further destabilise an already tense geopolitical context.
“The UK is a major polluter and has an established responsibility to rapidly curb its carbon emissions. Instead of overstepping boundaries by using public funds for risky, unethical experiments, it should focus on real solutions—starting with phasing out fossil fuels.”
Media Contact
Niccolò Sarno, CIEL Global Media Relations: [email protected] + 41 22 506 80 37
Notes to editors
ARIA, an initiative of former advisor to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, is modeled on the Cold War-era US research agency DARPA and intended “to fund high-risk, high-reward scientific research.” It is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. A March 17 decision of the Information Commissioner clarified that ARIA is subject to disclosures under Environmental Information Regulations.
ARIA’s programme thesis is heavily caveated in respect of transparency, noting: “[w]herever possible, those conducting field trials will be required to notify and consult those who could be reasonably be considered as likely to be affected by the trials” and “detailed plans for the field trials, and the key decisions taken in developing these plans, will be consulted upon as transparently as possible well in advance of any trial” [italics by CIEL].
The de facto moratorium under the Convention on Biological Diversity was reaffirmed only last Autumn, with parties citing concerns about the growth in planned experiments, demonstrating its ongoing importance. The moratorium provides an exception for “small-scale scientific research studies”, however various criteria, including that research must be “conducted in a controlled setting”, meaning it is likely that any outdoor field experiment would be in violation of the decision.