It’s the Global North pushing solar geoengineering – and here’s who’s funding it

Global solar geoengineering funding reached a record high in past two years (2023-4). And who’s happens to be funding it? That would be the Global North governments and wealthy philanthropists who are driving the climate crisis.

This is according to new analysis by a solar geoengineering research non-profit.

Significantly, Anglosphere countries provided three-quarters of global funding. At the same time, funders funneled more than 50 times more funding to the Global North than to Global South countries.

Solar geoengineering: now we who’s funding the controversial technology

Sunlight reflection methods (SRM) are a set of theoretical ideas to reflect a small fraction of incoming sunlight to reduce global temperatures. They would not be a solution to the climate crisis, but governments and researchers see it as one that could help to reduce some of its impacts. Purportedly, this would be while governments accelerate efforts on the essential work of decarbonisation. They would, however, introduce novel risks and are highly controversial.

International funding for research into SRM has surged in recent years. This marks intensifying international interest in this controversial set of potential ideas to cool the planet.

The research found that global funding for SRM has risen sharply in recent years. Notably, funding allocated to SRM was around three times greater in the five years from 2020-2024 ($112.1m) compared to ten years earlier in 2010-2014 ($34.9m). With $164.7m of funding already committed for 2025–2029, it seems likely this upward trend will continue.

The findings emerged from the first global analysis of funding flows in the field by SRM360.org, a new knowledge broker that informs people about the latest developments and trends in SRM research and governance. It launched the findings at the Degrees Global Forum in Cape Town, the world’s largest gathering of SRM experts.

SRM360’s new funding tracker provides the best available information to track SRM funders and recipients by country, sector, and activity. SRM360 will continue to update the tracker as more information emerges.

Global North gets the bulk of the funding

Funders have funneled the vast majority of SRM funding to date to the Global North. SRM researchers and organisations in the Global North have received more than 50 times more funding than those in the Global South.  Global North researchers took $188.2m through 2024, compared to $3.5m in Global South countries. The leading recipients of SRM funding through 2024 were in the US ($102.8m), Australia ($22.6m), the UK ($17.5m), Israel ($16.1m), and Canada ($12.0m). Recent announcements put the UK into second place going into the future.

Anglosphere countries have contributed three quarters of all SRM funding, and this is set to grow to 85%. The US has been the world’s largest source of SRM-related funding through to 2024, giving around $102.2m from public and private sources. Australia is close behind ($22.6m), with the UK ($17.5m), Israel ($16.1m) and the European Union (EU, $6.7m) following.

Some EU member countries have provided an additional $12.9m. For funds committed through 2030, the anglosphere is projected to move further into the lead, accounting for 85% of all funding. This is in large part due to recent UK commitments that will push the UK’s total from $17.5m to $121.1m, making it the world’s second largest funding source. This takes into account both governmental and philanthropic contributions.

Philanthropic sources and governments driving SRM

Philanthropic sources contribute half of all SRM funding for solar geoengineering. Up to 2024, these provided has come around $92.6m (48%).

Governmental funding takes a close second place with $80.2m (42%). Commercial investment – with for-profit motives – account for considerably less at $17.7m (9%). However, these only became a significant contribution in 2023. Major philanthropies outspend most nations on solar geoengineering.

There is no evidence of private fossil fuel funding for SRM. Nonetheless, anonymous sources and incomplete data raise questions.

SRM360’s research did not find evidence that private fossil fuel interests are funding or promoting SRM.  Moreover, many recipients of SRM funding explicitly state that they will not accept funding from fossil fuel sources. However, several organisations did not respond to requests for details about their funding sources, and it identified at least $1.1m of anonymous donations in the field.

Commenting on the findings, SRM360 editorial director Peter Irvine said:

There has been growing interest in solar geoengineering from some governments and philanthropies, but it’s been very difficult to get an overall picture. Our new analysis presents a comprehensive overview of the funding for the field, and it makes it clear that most funding comes from only a handful of countries and philanthropies.

SRM360 external relations director Mark Turner added:

As solar geoengineering research funding increases around the world, it is more critical than ever for people to have a clear accessible source of information about latest developments. Critical and difficult decisions await, and people across society should have the information they need to understand what is at stake.

Featured image via the Canary