When it comes to deciding the fate of the planet, Dr. Colleen Golja, a dedicated climate researcher, long maintained the conviction that science and reason would be the primary drivers of global policy. However, that belief was fundamentally shaken during a week in London last September. Golja was a key participant in the first of a series of high-stakes "war games" designed to simulate the international response to solar radiation modification (SRM)—a controversial suite of technologies aimed at cooling the Earth by reflecting sunlight back into space. The simulation, titled "Exploring Geopolitical Tipping Points and Climate Cooling Strategies," revealed a chilling reality: in the face of planetary catastrophe, scientific data is frequently sidelined by national security interests, mutual suspicion, and the strategic maneuvering of private industry.
The London Simulation: A Microcosm of Global Friction
The war game, organized by Danielle Young, an assistant professor in international relations at Leeds University, convened approximately two dozen participants at Queen Mary University of London. The roster included foreign-relations experts, military personnel, former government officials, and scientists from across the globe. Participants were divided into tables representing various stakeholders, including national governments (notably the U.S., China, Russia, and the UK), indigenous groups, climate NGOs, and influential technology companies like SpaceX and the geoengineering startup Stardust Solutions.
The simulation was structured around a series of hypothetical meetings of a hastily convened United Nations committee. The timeline progressed through three stages: the present day, September 2027, and September 2028. At each juncture, the stakes were raised by the introduction of new technological milestones and environmental disasters. The objective was to "stress-test" how the world might govern a technology that, while capable of lowering global temperatures, carries immense and unevenly distributed risks.
Dr. Golja’s role was to provide technical expertise, ensuring that the "policymakers" in the room made decisions based on scientific literacy. She soon found, however, that her expertise was largely irrelevant to the unfolding drama. "I thought that would be such an easy thing," Golja remarked. "Like, we can all agree to do ethical research and make sure it’s for the better of all humans. And boy, was I wrong."
The Science and Stakes of Solar Radiation Modification
Solar radiation modification is no longer a fringe concept within climate science. The most discussed method involves stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which mimics the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions. By spraying particles, such as sulfur dioxide, into the stratosphere, humans could theoretically create a reflective veil that reduces the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
While the cooling potential of SRM is widely accepted by the scientific community—capable of lowering global temperatures by 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius within a short timeframe—the side effects are fraught with uncertainty. Climate models suggest that while some regions might find relief from heatwaves, others, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, could face devastating droughts. Furthermore, SRM could intensify tropical storms in the Atlantic and alter monsoon patterns essential for global food security.
Perhaps the most significant risk is "termination shock." If a large-scale geoengineering project were suddenly halted—due to war, terrorism, or political collapse—the suppressed warming would rebound with extreme velocity, potentially causing more damage than the original gradual warming. Despite these risks, the slow pace of carbon decarbonization has made SRM an increasingly attractive "emergency brake" for some nations and private entities.
A Chronology of Escalation and Distrust
The simulation quickly descended into a cycle of disinformation and strategic posturing. The first session set a grim tone as representatives for the United States and China reached an immediate impasse. Both superpowers declared that they could not sign any international agreement that constrained their ability to conduct SRM research under the guise of "national interest."
Jeffrey Nielsen, a major in the U.S. Army who participated in the game as a national security attaché, summarized the prevailing logic: "Worse than no deal at all is any deal that favors China." This zero-sum mentality fueled a series of escalations:
- The Bering Strait Incident: The simulation organizers introduced an "intelligence report" claiming Russia had intercepted a plane near the Bering Strait suspected of being part of a clandestine U.S. geoengineering program. The U.S. team, which was indeed conducting research missions in the game, accused Russia of spreading disinformation.
- The SpaceX Overture: China’s representatives attempted to court the player representing SpaceX, floating a technology-sharing program. The SpaceX player immediately reported this to the U.S. team, triggering demands for an international investigation.
- The Breakdown of Diplomacy: By the end of the first session, any hope for a unified global framework had collapsed. The Canadian representative described the outcome as a "humiliating defeat" for international cooperation.
Nielsen noted that the simulation accurately reflected the likelihood of a "geoengineering arms race." In his view, neither the U.S. nor China is willing to cede control over the "global thermostat." Because the technology is relatively affordable compared to total economic decarbonization, it is uniquely susceptible to unilateral action.
The Marginalization of Science and the "Shadow" Influence
Throughout the simulation, Dr. Golja attempted to introduce an "emulator"—a data tool demonstrating the likely regional weather impacts of various geoengineering proposals. Her efforts were largely ignored. When participants did approach her, it was typically to ask leading questions designed to find data that would discredit a rival nation’s proposal or bolster their own strategic position.
The simulation also highlighted the potential for corporate interference. One participant represented the "Climate Futures Cooperative" (CFC), an NGO that appeared to be a neutral advocate for climate monitoring. In reality, the CFC was a front for the fossil fuel industry. The organizers designed this role to reflect how oil and gas interests might view SRM as a way to delay the transition away from hydrocarbons. By offering to fund scientific monitoring, the CFC eventually successfully compromised Dr. Golja’s credibility within the game, isolating the scientific voice and fragmenting the room further.
"It was a whole mess," Golja said, recalling that by the end of the final day, the sheer cynicism of the geopolitical maneuvering had moved her to tears.
Real-World Implications and the Rise of "Weather Sovereignty"
The London war game does not exist in a vacuum; it reflects a rapidly shifting political landscape. In recent months, several key developments have signaled that the era of speculative geoengineering is ending, and the era of strategic competition is beginning:
- Private Sector Ambition: The US-Israeli startup Stardust Solutions recently raised $60 million to develop technologies that could "dial down" the global temperature. CEO Yanai Yedvab has noted that policymakers are becoming increasingly aware of—and receptive to—these tools.
- High-Level Endorsements: In August 2023, Elon Musk took to the social media platform X to claim that "space satellites to control temperature and massive geo-engineering will be needed or it will be game over."
- The Politicization of the Atmosphere: In March 2024, papers from conservative U.S. think tanks urged a potential future Trump administration to seize the lead in SRM to counter Chinese influence. These papers introduced the term "weather sovereignty," framing the control of the atmosphere as a matter of national security rather than environmental stewardship.
- Governmental Ambivalence: The UK Ministry of Defense was recently revealed to have commissioned research into sunlight reflection. While the UK government released an official policy paper stating it does not currently support the deployment of SRM, it continues to back further research, keeping its options open.
Analysis: The New Deterrence
The dynamics observed in the London simulation suggest that solar radiation modification may follow the trajectory of nuclear technology during the 20th century. Like nuclear weapons, SRM offers a form of "asymmetric power"—a single nation could theoretically alter the climate for the entire world. This creates an environment of "interdependence," where the actions of one state have immediate, existential consequences for all others.
However, unlike nuclear weapons, SRM has an immediate, perceived benefit: the mitigation of heatwaves and crop failures. This makes it a more "tempting" tool for a populist leader or a nation facing an imminent climate catastrophe. The danger, as highlighted by the simulation, is that the pursuit of these benefits will be governed by "strategic competition and state sovereignty" rather than "climate concerns."
Cynthia Scharf, a former UN advisor who participated in the simulation, argued that "scientifically transparent international collaboration" between major powers like the U.S. and China is the only way to avoid a dangerous competition. Yet, given the current geopolitical climate, such collaboration remains a distant prospect.
Conclusion: A Personal Pivot
For Dr. Golja, the simulation was a transformative experience that changed her career trajectory. After witnessing how easily science could be weaponized or ignored in the pursuit of national interest, she began to question the utility of working on global-scale climate solutions.
On a corkboard behind her desk, she now keeps a note reminding her of the reality of a world ruled by narrow geopolitical self-interest. She has decided to return to her coastal hometown in Connecticut, shifting her focus from global atmospheric modeling to local adaptation. Her new goal is to help local communities build seawalls and coastal erosion buffers—tangible defenses against a changing climate that do not depend on the whims of global superpowers.
"To try and make a difference where it feels like I actually have traction," she said. "Now it feels a little bit more personal."
As the planet continues to warm, the lessons of the London war game serve as a stark warning. The technology to cool the Earth may soon be within reach, but the wisdom to govern it collectively appears to be as elusive as ever. The "geoengineering arms race" may not be a distant possibility, but a process that has already begun in the shadows of research labs and diplomatic backrooms.
