A UN simulation exposes how distrust, national interests, and fossil fuel manipulation could derail global coordination on solar geoengineering before it's too late.
By Adam Makins·
Last September, climate researcher Dr. Colleen Golja sat down at a war game in London expecting science to matter. She was spectacularly wrong.
The simulation, organized by Leeds University assistant professor Danielle Young, brought together foreign-relations experts, scientists, military personnel, and government officials to stress-test how the world might respond to solar radiation modification: experimental tech designed to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight back into space. Think volcanic eruptions, but engineered.
What unfolded over three simulated sessions spanning 2024 through 2028 was a masterclass in how geopolitical competition could sabotage humanity’s response to climate crisis before it even begins.
The first session set a bleak tone. As participants from the US, China, Russia, and other nations discussed rules for outdoor geoengineering experiments, negotiations immediately fractured along superpower lines. Both Washington and Beijing refused any deal that might constrain their own research or advantage their rival.
Then things got weird. Russian delegates received an “intelligence report” about a US research plane near the Bering Strait. The US team, which was actually flying missions, accused Russia of spreading disinformation. Meanwhile, convinced that China was secretly developing its own program, American officials demanded an international investigation after catching Chinese representatives chatting with a SpaceX player about technology sharing.
Here’s the kicker: according to the game designers, China wasn’t actually conducting experiments. But mutual suspicion made everyone believe everyone else was sprinting ahead.
Major Jeffrey Nielsen, playing the US national security attaché, called his team’s performance “humungous victory.” They’d prevented a global deal. In his mind, that was winning. But what he’d actually helped create was the exact scenario experts fear most: a race to deploy untested climate technology before anyone fully understands the consequences.
Golja, assigned to provide technical guidance, spent most of the game watching helplessly as geopolitics drowned out evidence-based discussion. She’d even prepared an “emulator” showing real climate science predictions about how solar radiation management might affect different regions. Nobody cared.
Countries only wanted scientific advice if it served their strategic interests. They’d ask Golja leading questions designed to make rival proposals sound reckless, then ignore her actual answers.
It wasn’t until the final day, when a mysterious aerosol plume appeared over the Arctic in the simulation, that science suddenly mattered. Countries desperately needed monitoring systems and satellite networks to prevent secret tests. That’s when Golja finally got attention. An NGO called the Climate Futures Cooperative offered her funding.
She almost said yes.
Then the simulation revealed its most chilling layer: the Climate Futures Cooperative wasn’t what it seemed. It was backed by the fossil fuel industry.
This wasn’t random. Game designers understood that coal, oil, and gas companies would love solar geoengineering. Why? Because it could fight climate change without forcing them to actually stop drilling. The shadowy NGO spent the game subtly sabotaging international cooperation, then timed its money offer to Golja perfectly, destroying her credibility at the moment when tech experts were most needed.
She ended the simulation in tears.
While simulations don’t predict the future, this one mapped real risks. Solar radiation modification actually works in the lab. The cooling effects of stratospheric aerosols are well understood. But the side effects are not: models predict drought in sub-Saharan Africa, intensified hurricanes in the Atlantic, and other impacts that remain poorly understood.
Worse, only superpowers have the capability to deploy this technology globally. Neither the US nor China would willingly cede control over the world’s thermostat to the other. And with scientific mainstream still skeptical of geoengineering research, there are few experts even studying these technologies seriously.
The simulation’s official conclusion was blunt: across multiple sessions, countries never reached a deal. “Strategic competition and state sovereignty drove the simulations, not climate concerns.”
We’re closer to needing geoengineering decisions than most politicians realize. The UK government funded this war game specifically because deployment discussions could arrive within a decade, not decades. When that moment comes, will we have learned anything from watching trust collapse in a London conference room?
Source: WIRED
