Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Differentiating Solar Radiation Modification Field Experiments: Scale, Technical Characteristics, and Governance Implications

  • B. H. Redmond Roche (Corresponding author)
  • , I. Hernandez-Galindo
  • , A. Määttänen
  • , J. C. Moore
  • , O. Boucher
  • , B. M. Dollner
  • , A. Duffey
  • , B. Gasparini
  • , J. Henneberger
  • , A. N. Koyun
  • , D. McGrath
  • , I. Steinke
  • , J. Vinders
  • , D. Visioni
  • , P. J. Irvine

Publications: Contribution to journalArticlePeer Reviewed

Abstract

Proposed solar radiation modification (SRM) field experiments are receiving growing scientific and policy attention, with several localized experiments having occurred or under development. While they may be critical for improving technical understanding and reducing uncertainties, SRM field experiments remain controversial and inadequately captured under current legal, ethical, and political frameworks, which often rely on binary “small-scale” or “large-scale” distinctions. In practice, SRM field experiments may vary widely in scale, geography, materials, scientific purpose, and environmental impacts, making uniform governance approaches impractical. Here, we develop a typology of plausible, scientifically motivated SRM field experiments across three leading approaches: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), and cirrus and mixed-phase cloud thinning (CCT/MCT). We identify six SAI, five MCB, and three CCT/MCT experiments across a range of scales, assessing their interaction with existing environmental and legal frameworks, particularly within the EU. The study also addresses governance challenges such as scale perception and stakeholder legitimacy, and highlights procedural tools, including exit ramps and transparency requirements. We introduce a phase-based typology of plausible SRM field experiments: near-phase (technically and regulatorily feasible), intermediate-phase (technically feasible but likely to cross regulatory thresholds), and distant-phase (plausible but requiring comprehensive review and new governance mechanisms). The intermediate-phase highlights that SRM research cannot be reduced to a small-/large-scale binary: many plausible experiments occupy a gray zone where scientific value is high, but governance remains underdeveloped. Recognizing this distinction may help prioritize governance, guide proportionate regulation, and ensure field experiments are evaluated by intent and their regulatory implications.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere2025EF007303
Number of pages37
JournalEarth's future
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2026

Funding

This paper was conducted under the Co‐CREATE project, which provided funding for the workshop and Co‐CREATE partners contributing to this publication. It received support from the Horizon Europe grant agreement number (No. 101137642), funding guarantee (No. 10098060—University College London), and the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, CINEA, or UKRI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. We thank the participants of the 2024 workshop for their contributions to the discussion and experimental concepts that inform this analysis. We are particularly grateful to Graham Feingold and Sarah Doherty for their substantial input and invaluable advice during the manuscript development process. This paper was conducted under the Co-CREATE project, which provided funding for the workshop and Co-CREATE partners contributing to this publication. It received support from the Horizon Europe grant agreement number (No. 101137642), funding guarantee (No. 10098060—University College London), and the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, CINEA, or UKRI. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. We thank the participants of the 2024 workshop for their contributions to the discussion and experimental concepts that inform this analysis. We are particularly grateful to Graham Feingold and Sarah Doherty for their substantial input and invaluable advice during the manuscript development process.

Austrian Fields of Science 2012

  • 103039 Aerosol physics
  • 103037 Environmental physics

Keywords

  • field experiments
  • research governance
  • solar radiation modification

Cite this