Monthly Archives: August 2025

Greenhouse Gas Removal (GRR) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM) encompass a range of technologies designed to counteract human-caused climate change. Often referred to as ‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate engineering’, these technologies are being explored by the UK and other countries to achieve net zero emission targets. What implications does their development and implementation hold for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The UK Government has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and has initiated various policies, research and mitigation actions to support this goal. However, the Climate Change Committee believes that these efforts alone will not be sufficient to meet the target. Geoengineering, the large-scale manipulation of Earth’s climate, is being framed as a new frontier to address this emissions gap. How is geoengineering being developed and deployed, and what does this all mean for rural communities?  

What is Geoengineering? In 1965, the Science Advisory Committee of US President Lyndon Johnson issued a report on atmospheric carbon dioxide, warning that it might be necessary to increase the Earth’s reflectivity to offset rising greenhouse-gas emissions. The committee also suggested the possibility of sprinkling reflective particles across the oceans. A branch of science known as geoengineering emerged, dedicated to exploring various techniques to cool the planet. It was not until 2006 that the discipline gained significant traction, when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist, advocated for geoengineering research in an article published in Climatic Change. Crutzen earned a Nobel Prize for research on the dangers of the growing ozone hole, and one of the known effects of sulfur dioxide is ozone depletion. Since then, and in essence, geoengineering, sometimes called climate engineering, has been used to ‘describe a range of technologies that aim to counteract human-caused climate change by deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems’. This modification of the climate system comprises Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). 

GGR actively eliminates greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, thereby mitigating the impacts of climate change. This includes the use of nature based methods, such as afforestation to increase carbon sequestration through the soil. 

SRM aims to modify the amount of solar radiation that passes through the atmosphere to reach the earth’s surface. Examples of SRM include cloud seeding (where particulate matter is introduced into clouds to induce precipitation) and stratospheric aerosol injection (where particles are injected into the atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions by reflecting incoming sunlight back to space). 

While the term ‘geoengineering’ often implies large-scale planetary technology, some researchers have explored the possibility of implementing it at a local scale. This includes investigating various methods that might protect coral reefs and ice sheets.

Why are geoengineering activities needed? The UK Government is a signatory to the Paris Agreement, and committed to reaching net zero by 2050. This means that the total greenhouse gas emissions would be equal to the emissions removed from the atmosphere, with the aim of limiting global warming and resultant climate change. To achieve this, the Government has adopted a range of policies and interventions set out in its the Net Zero Strategy (2021) and Powering Up Britain: The Net Zero Growth Plan (2023). Alongside this headline target, the Government has set ‘interim carbon budgets’ which cap emissions within certain periods. The fourth carbon budget requires a 52% reduction in emissions by 2027, and the budget runs up to the sixth carbon budget which requires a 78% reduction by 2037. 

Since 2024, the Labour Government has been enacting new legislation relevant to net zero. This includes the Great British Energy Act 2025 (on 15 May 2025), which established a publicly owned energy company backed by £8.3 billion over the course of the current parliament to accelerate the delivery of strategic energy projects and deliver the transition to homegrown clean energy set out in the Government’s Modern Industrial Strategy. The Crown Estate Act 2025 (passed on 11 March 2025) which has already led to a partnership with Great British Energy to leverage up to £60 billion of private investment into the UK’s drive for energy independence.  A Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill is currently making its way through parliament, which will introduce powers to enable a ‘revenue certainty mechanism’ to support sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK.     

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) notes that additional methods will be required to offset emissions from hard to decarbonise sectors, including aviation. For this purpose, it says engineered removal methods such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACS), may be necessary. 

However, some commentators and organisations believe geoengineering is not a viable solution to climate change – it may provide a temporary reprieve, but it could potentially disrupt the climate system even further, and it is a distraction that undermines real climate solutions. 

How is geoengineering being developed and deployed? The first outdoor geoengineering experiment is believed to have occurred in Russia in 2009. In this experiment, scientists mounted aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car, spraying particles as high as 200 metres. According to a paper published in Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, the experiment successfully reduced the amount of sunlight that reached the surface. More recently, in 2021, the United Arab Emirates used cloud seeding to encourage rainfall. In the United States, Harvard University cancelled its planned Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), also known as ‘sun-dimming’, in 2024 due to public and ethical concerns. However, researchers at the University of Washington are proposing to conduct small-scale experiments to further understand marine cloud brightening.  

In the UK, the SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) project commenced in October 2010 as an academic initiative to explore the feasibility, risks and governance associated with SRM. The project was discontinued in 2012 following the abandonment of a field trial which would have seen approximately 150 litres of water pumped into the atmosphere through a 1 kilometre hosepipe attached to a balloon. The decision was made amid criticism that the earth scientists and academic institutions involved had entered into a pre-existing patent application for some of the technology involved.  

Between 2017 and 2021, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) implemented a £8.6 million GGR research programme. This aimed to evaluate the real-world feasibility of GGR techniques and synthesise new information on potential GGR techniques to inform international policymaking. The programme provided 24 awards, including to researchers at the University of Reading who investigated converting agricultural land back to forestry; the University of Bristol to undertake a deeper analysis of GGR potential using satellite data on land cover and biomass, and a forest carbon accounting model; and Cranfield University to harmonise life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to assess GGR techniques. 

From 2021 to 2026, UKRI is delivering a GGR demonstrators programme. Up to £6.1 million is available to develop a suite of GGR technologies at demonstrator scale. The programme also includes the development of a directorate hub for understanding the economics, governance, society and ethics of GGR; and the identification of commercially viable and scalable GGR solutions. 

In June 2024, UKRI announced funding for a SRM programme. This will support four projects over 54 months, beginning in 2025. The programme focuses on modelling and potentially laboratory work to see how SRM approaches implemented at scale would affect the Earth’s surface temperature. Notably, the programme does not support outdoors research. In parallel, Advanced Research and Innovation (ARIA), launched a £56.8 million research programme to explore climate cooling. This programme is funding 21 research teams engaged in modelling, observations and monitoring, indoor testing, [and in accordance with ARIA’s oversight and governance principles] small scale, controlled outdoor experiments to investigate the potential effects of geoengineering approaches on planetary cooling. Additionally, the programme is funding the societal aspects of scientific research, including methods for public engagement, public attitudes to geoengineering, and governance.    

The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [now the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DESNZ], invested approximately £100 million from 2015 to 2021 in the low carbon industry. This initiative has since been succeeded by the Net Zero Innovation Portfolio. 

What is the Government position? In 2020, the UK Government published a statement setting out its view on GGR and SRM. This statement detailed the Government’s efforts to develop a comprehensive, strategic approach to GGRs, based on an evolving evidence base. It also clarified that the Government was not deploying SRM and had no plans to do so. The Government also emphasised that any deployment of GGRs must ‘comply with local national and international regulation and guidance’. 

The UK Government funds research into GGRs, primarily through the DESNZ. In March 2025, the Government initiated an independent review to evaluate how GGRs can assist the UK in achieving its net zero targets, with a particular focus on engineered GGR approaches. Dr Alan Whitehead is the review Chair, whose terms of reference cover the potential scale of emissions savings, the opportunities of GGR deployment at scale, barriers to deployment, the economic cost of deploying GGRs, transitioning away from public investment and attracting private investment, and supporting the Government’s wider growth and clean energy superpower missions. In May-June 2025, a call for evidence was issued to gather views from the general public, developers, and other organisations on the opportunities and challenges of GGRs, the potential scale of emissions savings, and the economic cost of deploying GGRs. The Review is due to publish a final report with recommendations in October 2025, with interim findings presented to the DESNZ Secretary of State as appropriate. 

Making Britain a clean energy superpower is one of the Government’s five missions, outlined in its Plan for Change. At Spending Review 2025 (SR25), the Government announced a series of investments to accelerate net zero while driving growth. This includes an allocation of £9.4 billion to CCUS over the SR period, which encompasses two major carbon capture projects in Aberdeenshire and the Humber.  

In December 2024, a petition was launched calling for the prohibition of all forms of geoengineering that impact the environment. The petition garnered 160,631 signatures, leading to a parliamentary debate on 23 June 2025. Prior to the debate, in May 2025, the Government issued a response to the petition. In this response, the Government highlighted the commercial-scale GGR projects being planned or operating in other countries, and outlined ongoing efforts in the UK to develop sustainability criteria for GGRs that utilise biomass such as BECCS: 

“The government supports the deployment of high integrity removals, and has committed to ensuring that GGRs provide measurable and verifiable removals of CO2 from the atmosphere. The government is currently working with the British Standards Institution to develop GGR methodologies. Some GGR technologies may use sustainable biomass and relevant GGR standards will also include biomass sustainability criteria”.   

In acknowledging the ARIA climate cooling programme, the Government reiterated that it is not deploying SRM and has no plans to do so: 

“…the wider consequences of SRM are poorly understood, with significant uncertainty around the possible risks and impacts of deployment. As such, the government’s position is that it is not deploying SRM and has no plans in place to do so”. 

At the Westminster debate, MPs debated the petition’s calls for a pre-emptive ban on GGRs and SRM. Dr Roz Savage opened the debate and described how: 

“Once SRM is deployed, we are in effect launching a planetary experiment, with no ability to reverse it if things go wrong. As the petitioners have highlighted, even if SRM “works” in the short term, there is a risk that our climate will become dependent on continual injections. If the injections stopped for any reason, which in our turbulent geopolitical world is entirely possible, we would risk a phenomenon known as termination shock: a sudden extreme spike in global temperatures, which would be potentially catastrophic for life on Earth…Instead of reaching for techno fixes, we need to do what we already know works: cut fossil fuel use, restore nature and—gosh—maybe even look at changing our behaviour, because at some point, sooner or later, behaviour change must be part of the picture”.  

This view was echoed by Pippa Heylings MP who called for “our need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and reduce our polluting emissions by accelerating investment in renewables and clean, green energy. Our emissions are not falling fast enough, and we are not on track to meet our legally binding climate targets…we now need ambitious action not just in the energy sector but across transport, buildings, industry, and agriculture…with aggressive investment in renewables and actions to decarbonise key sectors, we will still have to deal with residual emissions from heavy industries, particularly aviation, shipping and steel…we [Liberal Democrats] think that the money invested in SRM research could have been better allocated to other measures for dealing with nature-based removal…However, a blanket ban on geo-engineering, as the motion proposed, would be short-sighted and self-defeating…let us therefore champion governance built on transparency for any kind of research and standards in geoengineering and climate action”. 

Nick Timothy MP also highlighted his opposition to SRM: “we [Conservatives] oppose any attempts to seed the sky, and every effort must be made to be respectful of nature ad our planet. Chasing such hare-brained scientific schemes to interfere with the climate and the atmosphere will not give us answers to any live public policy dilemmas”. 

Kerry McCarthy, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero described how GRR and SRM are two groups of technologies: 

“Those [GRR and SRM] are two very separate, very different approaches to addressing climate change, and the UK has two very separate, very different positions on their use. Greenhouse gas removals…are vital to achieving net zero, and we support their deployment…We know that emissions are hard to abate in some sectors, and that we will not be able to do it fully. Greenhouse gas removal technologies will therefore be important to balance those residual emissions…we know that nature-based approaches need to be complemented by engineered solutions to remove carbon dioxide at the speed and scale necessary for us to meet out targets…We are committed to supporting the deployment of engineered GGRs….we have no plans for SRM…We are not in favour of SRM and have no plans to change that position…There will be no spraying of chemicals in the skies over the UK for SRM, geo-engineering or climate remediation. Our priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change. However we do need to understand the potential risks and impacts of SRM”. 

The debate was a rare occasion where there was multi-party consensus, with no plans for SRM. 

What does geoengineering mean for rural communities? I offer four points. Firstly, rural communities are on the frontline of extreme weather. In July 2025, the Met Office published the latest assessment of the UK’s climate. The report highlights a steady warming of the UK’s climate since the 1980s, with an increasing frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes. The last three years have been among the UK’s five warmest on record, with 2024 the fourth warmest year in records dating back to 1884. The authors suggest that the pace of change and clustering of consecutive records is not a natural variation in the climate, but rather the result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, which are warming the atmosphere and altering weather patterns. In June 2025, the Environment Agency warned that England faces a 5 billion litre a day shortfall in public water supplies without urgent action to futureproof resources.   

In September 2024, the Environment Agency and Natural England launched the Rural Flood Resilience Partnership to help farmers and rural communities adapt to a changing climate. The Partnership’s work plan 2024-2026 contains seven strategic outcomes, including the collection of better evidence to measure rural risk, providing farmers and rural residents with access to quality support and funding to enhance their resilience, and engaging rural communities in flood and coastal change resilience efforts. According to the Environment Agency’s latest national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk (January 2025), approximately 13% of all agricultural land and 59% of grade 1 agricultural land is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Climate change projections indicate that this risk could increase by 5% by mid-century. 

Since June 2025, the National Drought Group (NDG) has been declaring droughts in various parts of the UK and reclassified more areas into prolonged dry weather status. This has led to hosepipe bans in some regions. Drought and dry weather have significant implications for rural areas. This includes crop failure or reduce crop yield affecting farm incomes (and ultimately consumer prices), disruption to drinking water and feed for livestock, an increase in fire risk, and a reduction in tourism and recreation sectors that rely on waterbodies. On 11 August 2025, the NDG met because the current water shortage in England became classified as a ‘nationally significant incident’. Currently, five areas in drought (Yorkshire, Cumbria & Lancashire, Greater Manchester Merseyside & Cheshire, East Midlands and West Midlands), and six other areas experiencing prolonged dry weather following the driest 6 months to July since 1976 (Northeast, Lincolnshire & Northamptonshire, East Anglia, Thames, Wessex, Solent & South Downs). The meeting reviewed the water-saving measures the sector and public are undertaking.  

Secondly, rural communities and businesses are already and continue to be committed to reducing their carbon footprint. UK:100 is a cross-party network of local authorities collaborating to tackle climate change. This network includes the Countryside Climate Network (CCN), which aims to amplify the voice of rural communities as part of its national policy advocacy. CCN research has found that rural communities are more receptive to renewable energy generation than their urban counterparts. Moreover, other studies have highlighted how rural Local Authorities are critical to delivering net zero, but struggling to do so in transport, service delivery and housing because of population sparsity and a lack of economies of scale – this necessitates different solutions for rural areas compared to urban ones.  

There is a substantial body of work examining how rural residents and businesses are reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In February 2025, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) published an Agri-climate report that assessed the impact of farming on climate change. The report found that total UK agricultural greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12% between 1990 and 2022, driven by reductions in livestock numbers and use of manufactured fertilisers. The 2024 Farm Practice Survey (FPS) indicated that 58% of farmers in England thought it was important to consider greenhouse gas emissions when making farm business decisions, with 48% of farmers taking actions to reduce emissions. The most common actions included recycling waste materials from the farm, improving energy efficiency and reducing tillage/no tillage. Farmers cited conflicting views, lack of information and a lack of finance and incentives as barriers to adopting mitigation practices. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) estimates that nature based GGR methods could offset the emissions produced by the agricultural sector by 2050.  

Thirdly, there are significant opportunities for the deployment of engineered GRR at scale in rural areas. A report from Baringa found that the UK biomass sector contributes approximately £2 billion in annual economic value, supporting over 34,000 jobs in farming, forestry, processing, transport and logistics, with the majority of these jobs located in rural areas. There are more than 200 biomass Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants operating across the UK. Fitting existing facilities with BECCS technologies could help remove up to 10 million tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere by 2035, providing 79% of the removals required under the CCC’s seventh carbon budget. The Government’s ongoing Independent Review of GRRs is considering the relative prioritisation of biomass use within the UK’s energy system. 

At the Westminster Hall debate, Kerry McCarthy, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero described how “any GGR project deployed in the UK must comply with the relevant regulations and planning processes to ensure it is managed responsibly and that any environmental impacts are addressed, including impacts on biodiversity, pollution, and local communities. We will continue to work with the necessary Departments, regulators and other public bodies to ensure that the UK’s regulatory environment is well placed to support the deployment of GGRs without causing environmental harm”.   

Fourthly, rural areas are living laboratories, providing real world environments to develop and test solutions. In a blog, the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) highlights that a strong foundation for geoengineering governance already exists, but there is a growing disregard for this restrictive framework. The CIEL describes how, in recent years, geoengineering proponents have attempted to advance research and field experiments despite clear international decisions that prohibit or severely limit their development. Furthermore, the voluntary carbon markets and decisions at the 2024 UN Climate Conference (COP29) risk creating a backdoor for geoengineering commercialisation, thereby undermining climate action while benefiting polluters. 

According to the CIEL, at least 598 outdoor geoengineering experiment trials have been proposed since 1971, with over 90% proposed between 2004 and 2023, and more than 50% between 2019 and 2023. There is a need for a collective understanding of the GRR and SRM activities taking place or planned in rural areas. How are GRR and SRM models, indoor experiments and controlled outdoor experiments engaging with rural communities in their development and deployment? 

Where next? On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a non-binding ruling that countries could sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions. Countries are increasingly utilising technology to alter conditions in the atmosphere, oceans, and ice to improve weather to their advantage or mitigate global warming. Geoengineering is not hypothetical; it is a reality unfolding in the real world. For some commentators, geoengineering comprises highly speculative technologies that fail to address the root causes of climate change, and represent the false possibility of a quick fix. Conversely, others view GRR as essential for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Various research programmes are underway, and it is evident that more data and evidence are needed to enhance our understanding of the impacts of large-scale geoengineering on people, places and the environment. Untangling the contributors to various parts of climate change and devising mitigation strategies, and paying for them, has significant implications for rural communities. Watch this space!   

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently collating initiatives and plans to tackle economic inactivity and support people into good work; developing a community masterplan; and evaluating a heritage skills programme. Jessica also sits on the board of a charity supporting rural communities across Cambridgeshire and is a member of her local Patient Participation Group. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

LinkedIn: 🌈Jessica Sellick