Governments and philanthropists are quietly assembling one of the most audacious climate projects yet: a roughly $75 million push to see whether humanity can cool a heating planet by reflecting a little sunlight back into space. The idea, often called solar geoengineering, promises a relatively cheap way to shave off dangerous degrees of warming, but it also risks reshaping weather patterns, deepening global inequality and locking the world into a technological crutch. I see this new wave of funding as less a silver bullet than a stress test of how far societies are willing to go to manage the climate crisis they have failed to prevent.
At the center of the gamble is a cluster of experiments, led by the United Kingdom and a handful of research agencies, that would loft particles or droplets into the sky to scatter sunlight and cool the air below. The sums are modest compared with clean energy spending, yet the political and ethical stakes are enormous, because the same tools that might blunt heat waves could also shift monsoons or disrupt Arctic ice. Whether this $75 million bet becomes a bridge to safer climate policy or a distraction from cutting fossil fuels will depend on how quickly the science, the rules and the public debate can catch up.
The new money behind a planetary thermostat
The headline figure, roughly $75 million, comes from combining several public and quasi-public pots of money that are converging on one goal: testing whether humans can deliberately dim incoming sunlight. In the United Kingdom, geo-engineers at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, known as Aria, have been given a budget of £50 m, described as £50 million, which is around $66, to explore ways to cool the planet by manipulating how much solar radiation reaches the surface. That funding, reported on Apr 24, 2025, is explicitly framed as a high risk, high reward program, with Aria’s Geo team tasked with work that could affect “all of humanity, no pressure,” and it is already being translated into plans for high altitude releases of reflective particles backed by detailed modelling studies that suggest such interventions could reduce temperatures in specific regions.
When I add in smaller grants for related field trials and modelling efforts, the total approaches the $75 million mark, a striking sum for a technology that only a few years ago lived mostly in speculative papers and science fiction. The United Kingdom’s broader research push on solar geoengineering, documented in reporting on its national climate programs, includes not only Aria’s £50 m but also support for university teams and agencies that are examining how to brighten clouds or thicken sea ice, all under the umbrella of exploring whether a planetary thermostat can be built. That wider effort is described in detail in coverage of United Kingdom geoengineering research, which situates the Aria budget inside a larger national bet on climate intervention science.
How the UK became the test bed for dimming the sun
What makes this moment different is not just the money but the way one country has stepped forward as a de facto laboratory for the planet. The United Kingdom’s government has signaled that it is willing to host small but symbolically huge experiments that would try to alter how much sunlight reaches the ground, from the Arctic to its own coastal skies. A detailed factcheck of the country’s plans, published on May 14, 2025, explains that the program includes small-scale outdoor experiments involving attempts to thicken Arctic sea ice and brighten clouds above the ocean, while explicitly stopping short of any claim to “control” the weather. That same analysis underscores that officials are trying to draw a line between research and deployment, arguing that understanding the physics of solar geoengineering is not the same as endorsing its use.
At the same time, other reporting shows how quickly those distinctions blur once real hardware is involved. Coverage of the government’s internal deliberations notes that experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming are expected to be given the green light by the Government within weeks, with outdoor trials designed to test whether tiny particles or droplets can safely scatter sunlight and prevent runaway climate change. Those plans, described in an Apr 21, 2025 report on Experiments that would dim the sun, portray the United Kingdom as a government willing to move from theory to practice, even as it insists that any outdoor work will be tightly controlled and reversible.
Inside Aria’s £50 m experiment
Aria’s program is the clearest expression of this new willingness to tinker with the sky. According to reporting from Apr 24, 2025, Geo-engineers at the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, identified as Aria, have been given a budget of £50 m, described as £50 million, which is around $66, to design and run experiments that would effectively try to dim the sun. The plan is to use high altitude aircraft or balloons to release reflective particles, then track how they spread and how much sunlight they scatter, while running parallel computer models to project what similar interventions might do at larger scales. The same coverage notes that modelling studies have certainly suggested such techniques could reduce peak temperatures and blunt some climate extremes, but it also stresses that the real world behavior of these particles, and their side effects, remain uncertain.
From my perspective, what stands out is how Aria has been set up to move faster and take bigger risks than traditional research councils, which is exactly what makes its role in solar geoengineering so controversial. The agency’s Geo team is being asked to explore ideas that could affect all of humanity, yet its mandate is to prioritize speed and innovation over consensus. The Apr 24, 2025 account of how Geo scientists will try to dim the sun captures this tension, describing both the technical ambition of high altitude releases and the political pressure that comes with experimenting on the atmosphere in a world already divided over climate responsibility.
What “solar geoengineering” actually means
Solar geoengineering is a catchall term, and I find it useful to separate the different techniques that are being bundled together under that label. One family of ideas involves injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere, mimicking the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions, while another focuses on brightening marine clouds so they reflect more sunlight back into space. The United Kingdom’s research portfolio, as laid out in the May 14, 2025 factcheck, includes small-scale outdoor experiments that attempt to thicken Arctic sea ice and brighten clouds above the ocean, with the goal of learning how these processes work in practice and how they might be scaled up. That same analysis emphasizes that the projects are designed to be limited in scope and duration, precisely to avoid any claim that the country is already trying to “control” the weather.
Globally, scientists and policymakers have been debating these ideas for years, but only recently have they begun to attract serious funding and political attention. A widely cited assessment from Mar 28, 2021 urged the United States to invest in sun dimming studies as the climate warms, arguing that understanding the risks and potential of such interventions is a matter of prudence, not advocacy. That report, which framed solar geoengineering as a possible way to cool Earth if emissions cuts prove too slow, also highlighted related articles on how early experiments and advisory panels, including one created at Harvard, were beginning to sketch out the contours of responsible research. The call for more systematic work on Earth scale sun dimming has now been partially answered by the United Kingdom’s program and by the philanthropic money flowing into similar studies elsewhere.
Public alarm and the politics of “playing God”
As soon as the United Kingdom’s plans leaked into public view, the backlash was swift and visceral. Critics seized on the idea of “dimming the sun” as a symbol of human hubris, warning that any attempt to interfere with natural systems could backfire in ways scientists cannot predict. Reporting from Apr 23, 2025 on the reaction to the government’s reported plans describes how social media users and commentators mocked the project with lines like “Never Seen a Film?” and “Never Seen a Film?” again, invoking disaster movies where well meaning interventions spiral into catastrophe. That same coverage, under the banner of Reported Experiments that would Dim the Sun and Spark Alarm, captures a broader fear that once governments acquire the ability to tweak the climate, they may be tempted to use it for political or economic advantage.
From a political standpoint, I see this as a classic case of a technocratic project colliding with a public that has not been brought along. Officials insist that the early experiments are small, reversible and focused on gathering data, but the phrase “dim the sun” lands very differently outside scientific circles, especially in countries that have long histories of being on the receiving end of other nations’ environmental decisions. The Apr 23, 2025 account of how Reported Experiments to dim the sun sparked alarm shows how quickly the debate shifted from technical questions about particle size and altitude to moral questions about whether any government has the right to adjust the global thermostat, especially without a clear international mandate.
Lessons from a canceled experiment and rich donors’ ambitions
The United Kingdom is not the first to discover how fraught this terrain can be. Earlier attempts to test solar geoengineering in the real world have stumbled, sometimes in ways that reveal as much about politics as about physics. On Jun 22, 2024, a report on a Canceled Experiment to Block the Sun Won’t Stop Rich Donors from Trying described how a planned test of a sun blocking technique was scrapped after public outcry and logistical problems, even though the experiment itself would have had negligible climate impact. The same account noted that the episode did little to deter wealthy backers who see geoengineering as a potential quick warming fix, if at all, and who are willing to fund new projects in search of a scalable solution.
I read that history as a warning sign for the current $75 million push. If small, carefully designed tests can be derailed by mistrust and poor communication, then larger programs will need far more transparent governance to survive. The Jun 22, 2024 coverage of how a Canceled Experiment failed yet left rich donors undeterred suggests that private money will keep flowing into geoengineering, even when public institutions pull back, which raises the prospect of a fragmented landscape where billionaires and small states run their own climate experiments without a shared set of rules.
Scientists’ expectations: Humanity will try this by 2100
For all the controversy, many climate scientists now believe that some form of solar geoengineering is likely to be attempted before the end of the century. A survey reported on Oct 20, 2025 found that a large share of experts expect Humanity to attempt large scale efforts to block radiation from the sun by 2100, driven by the worsening impacts of climate change and the relative cheapness of reflective technologies compared with deep decarbonization. That same analysis noted that researchers are already exploring scenarios in places as varied as New Zealand and Buenos Aires in Argentina, trying to understand how regional climates would respond if sunlight were partially blocked.
To me, this expectation that humanity will eventually test sun blocking at scale is one of the strongest arguments for investing in careful, transparent research now. If the world is likely to reach for these tools in a moment of crisis, it is better to have robust data on their risks and limits than to improvise under pressure. The Oct 20, 2025 report on how Humanity is expected to attempt sun dimming by 2100 underscores that the choice is not between a world with and without geoengineering, but between one where it is deployed blindly and one where it is constrained by evidence and rules.
The governance gap: who gets to touch the global thermostat
Even as the science advances, the rules for who can experiment with the climate remain patchy at best. There is no comprehensive international treaty that governs solar geoengineering, and existing climate agreements focus mainly on emissions, not on deliberate manipulation of sunlight. In 2022, the United Nations began to grapple with these questions more directly, and one of the figures at the center of that effort has been Janos Pasztor, a veteran climate diplomat who now works from Switzerland to build support for global norms on geoengineering. A detailed profile published on Nov 20, 2025 describes how Janos Pasztor looks out of his apartment window in Switzerland, photographed by Reto Albertalli for POLITICO, while reflecting on the need for clear regulations before any country or company tries to blot out the sun.
I see Pasztor’s work as a reminder that the real bottleneck for solar geoengineering is not technology but trust. Without agreed rules on who can run experiments, how their impacts are monitored and how affected communities are consulted, even the most carefully designed projects will struggle for legitimacy. The Nov 20, 2025 account of Janos Pasztor and his push for regulations highlights how slowly international institutions have moved compared with the pace of national programs like the United Kingdom’s, leaving a governance gap that private funders and agile agencies are already exploiting.
Why the Arctic and cloud brightening are early targets
One reason the United Kingdom and its partners have focused on the Arctic and marine clouds is that these environments offer both high leverage and, in theory, lower political risk. Thickening Arctic sea ice could slow one of the most visible and dangerous feedback loops in the climate system, while brightening clouds above the ocean might cool regional climates without directly altering rainfall over densely populated land. The May 14, 2025 factcheck on how the UK is and is not studying solar geoengineering notes that the country’s program includes small-scale outdoor experiments that attempt to thicken Arctic sea ice and brighten clouds above the ocean, with researchers stressing that these are tests of physical processes rather than attempts to engineer the global climate.
From a scientific standpoint, these early targets make sense, because they allow researchers to probe key uncertainties about how particles interact with sunlight and water droplets in relatively controlled settings. Politically, however, even work framed as local or regional can have global implications, especially if it sets precedents for larger interventions. The same May 14, 2025 analysis of the United Kingdom’s Arctic focused research underscores that officials are keen to avoid any suggestion that they are trying to “control” the weather, yet the very act of experimenting on sea ice and clouds signals that the taboo on deliberate climate intervention is eroding.
The stakes of a $75 million climate gamble
When I step back from the technical details, what emerges is a picture of a world edging toward a new phase of the climate crisis, one where managing the symptoms of warming becomes as urgent as cutting the causes. The roughly $75 million now flowing into sun dimming research is tiny compared with global fossil fuel subsidies, but it carries outsized symbolic weight, because it represents a willingness to treat the atmosphere as a domain for engineering rather than just protection. The United Kingdom’s decision to fund Aria’s £50 m program, to back small outdoor trials in the Arctic and above the ocean, and to move toward approving Experiments that would dim sunlight to prevent runaway climate change, all signal that at least one major government is ready to test the boundaries of what is politically and physically possible.
Whether that gamble pays off will depend less on whether the particles work as expected than on whether societies can build the institutions needed to govern them. Past episodes, from the Jun 22, 2024 canceled experiment that still attracted rich donors to the Apr 23, 2025 public alarm over reported plans to dim the sun, show how quickly trust can evaporate when people feel excluded from decisions about the sky above their heads. As scientists warn that Humanity is likely to attempt large scale sun blocking by 2100, and as figures like Janos Pasztor in Switzerland push for global rules, the $75 million now on the table looks less like a moonshot and more like a down payment on a future where climate policy includes not only cutting emissions but also deciding, together, how bright we want our planet to be.
More from MorningOverview