Pushback on GE

[Greg Rau]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/19/solar-geoengineering-risk-to-planet-earth

“ If we are to seriously consider geoengineering, then we need to make sure that the scientific foundations are in place. But for the most part, this is not the kind of research we are getting in the new tsunami of funding. What we are getting instead is funding targeted at developing the engineering technology for deployment, regardless of the consequences of what that deployment may be.

The solar geoengineering techno juggernaut rolls on, with what seems to be a complete disregard for what the damage might be to the planet, and despite several important assessments from leading scientific academies (to which we belong), eg the UK Royal Society, US National Academy, French Academy of Sciences.

Some want to ban vital geoengineering research. This would be a catastrophic mistake 

Read more

Each has highlighted the major uncertainties, core ethics and governance issues, urging great caution. This is particularly true of the £60m geoengineering programme funded by the UK’s Aria agency. Aria’s chief aim is technology development, and indeed many of the geoengineering projects they are funding are being done in collaboration with for-profit companies.”

[Alan Gadian]

Greg,

I am afraid the ARIA proposal was very much earmarked funding. It was a procedure that involve significant use of NDAs and exclusions and typical in my opinion of British mismanagement.  

Latham and Salter ( both died recently)  and I developed and published many papers on MCB. In the end, we argued that more research had to be focused on the optimal spray size and unintended consequences hand in hand with observations and microphysics. 

 Unfortunately, the ARIA reviewers thought we did not know much about MCB and just wanted to fund what it wanted fund ( Aria is run by a chemical engineer) ignoring the science unknowns  …. in my opinion … it is a dangerous path to follow when you ignore the inventors .

Meanwhile, the reduction of funding to atmospheric sciences, the UK research aircraft ( required to make observations) and 30+ scientists were made redundant, badly affecting cloud physics research in the UK.  Salters labs in Edinburgh have developed salt spray devices, but they were ignored as well in the  ARIA funding. 

It is all very, very sad … The whole question of scientific integrity of the technique of MCB is thrown into question by this approach. 

I hope for the best but … i fear the worst. 

regards 

Alan 

T ---

Alan Gadian, UK.

Tel: +44 / 0  775 451 9009 

T ---

On 21 Jun 2026, at 18:02, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/D71BB33C-8C98-455F-96F6-CD7008945A0D%40sbcglobal.net.