Britons For A Clean Atmosphere
Open Letter: Reply to Parliamentary Debate on Geoengineering 23/06/25
Context
We have decided to publish our responses to the Parliamentary debate on Geoengineering as an open letter, serving as a resource and article for those who are interested.
Britons for a Clean Atmosphere member, Antoinette Taylor, created the petition, Make all forms of geoengineering affecting the environment illegal, via the UK Parliament petitions website. The petition raised 160,632 signatures, triggering a parliamentary debate. The subsequent debate took place in the context of heightened public concern about the ARIA sun-dimming research when the official news came earlier this year.
As expressed in our initial response to the debate, a true and honest debate did not take place, but instead a scripted regurgitation of the government’s already stated position. Nevertheless, this development has capacity to heighten public awareness and strengthen public engagement. However there is risk of this important development being forgotten about in the current political climate where strategic flooding of the information space is continuous.
Key Points
First of all, we extend sincere thanks to Dr Roz Savage MP for introducing the parliamentary debate on geoengineering on 23rd June 2025. Despite the low rate of attendance, it was most heartening that all speakers at the debate were united with Dr Savage in opposing the use of solar radiation management (SRM), showing that there is a clear consensus against it.
We can perhaps interpret the low rate of attendance as evidence that MPs, on the whole, are not well informed about geoengineering and the serious hazards posed by it. We can probably also interpret the lack of scrutiny by MPs during the two years that it took for the ARIA bill to pass through parliament and into law as further evidence of this surprising lack of awareness.
Thanks to the debate, the existence of polluting, hazardous atmospheric interventions known as ‘geoengineering’ can no longer be denied. Furthermore, now that the fact of geoengineering well & truly on record, we can perhaps hope that our representatives will now take time to begin to educate themselves on this urgent matter of national interest.
As well as the very positive development that the debate represents, there are some unanswered questions that it has raised. We would like to share these with all reading this open letter for your consideration and warmly welcome your responses.
The government claim that it has no plans to deploy SRM does not in any way alter the need for regulation, as recommended in 2010 by the Science & Technology Committee and in 2009 by the Royal Society.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/22102.htm
If there were no plans to deploy SRM, how do we explain the flurry of articles in April/May of this year announcing that launch of the very same programmes?
https://insiderpaper.com/sunlight-dimming-experiments-global-warming-uk/ https://orbitaltoday.com/2025/04/23/blocking-the-sun-uk-scientists-set-to-test-radical-climate-fix/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c5ygydeqq08o
As Dr Savage rightly pointed out, solar radiation geoengineering is a planetary level experiment that gives no chance of reversal if things go wrong. The widely acknowledged material and moral hazards are multifaceted, impacting ecology, environment, health, economy and geopolitics. An experiment on this scale potentially impacts every single one of us and yet the debate completely overlooked the key research principle of informed consent. Surely this is an unacceptable if not criminal assault on the right to live free from serious harm?
The debate accepted the need for ‘research,’ but failed to acknowledge that there is no meaningful distinction between outdoor SAI/SRM experiments and actual deployments. Whether by research or actual deployments these activities release hazardous pollution into the atmosphere.
Readers should be aware that Britain, one of 193 countries, approved a ban on geoengineering research under a global biodiversity treaty in 2010.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i45/Countries-Agree-Ban-Geoengineering.html
In the conclusion to the debate Dr Savage made the essential point that there is need for utmost transparency. The ethical need for transparency for the public was similarly acknowledged by the above committees in 2009/10. However ARIA appears to be exempt from the Freedom of Information laws which seems to be a blatant and arrogant betrayal of public trust.
To expand on this, we would like to draw attention to the following document. This document confirms that, evading all ethical consent and democratic obligation, the infrastructure, finance, personnel and experimental zones for geoengineering experiments in Britain are ALREADY in place.
https://courage.media/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025.06.20-EIR-Response-Annexes.pdf
We would like to direct the reader to the section, De-Risking Cirrus Modification, Annex 2, page 5 (p.22 of entire document). One of the most significant disclosures here are the intended trials, due to take place in phases, culminating in real-world experimentation over Stornoway in the Scottish Highlands. These trials will use aircraft to release particles with the intention of allowing more heat to escape Earth’s atmosphere. The particles are referred to vaguely, and with no mention of any assessments of environmental impact.
Aspects of the research such as adding “metal oxides” to aircraft fuel to create “contaminated soots” in order to create cloud are particularly concerning. Furthermore, on page 23 you will see that silver iodide is likely to be used for these seeding experiments. Silver iodide, the primary agent used in cloud seeding, is classified as a hazardous substance.
https://www.chemicalbook.com/msds/silver-iodide.htm
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27517140
These facts illustrate perfectly both the dangers of ARIA, set up as an arms-length body free from the usual processes of scrutiny and the tendency of the scientific community to use technology once in existence, points that made so eloquently by Dr Savage in her summary of the debate. We should note that ARIA has been described as a ‘unique organisation with unique freedoms.’ This level of unchecked autonomy and empowerment to conduct ‘high risk, high reward research’ is completely unacceptable.
We would also like the reader to be aware that the UK cloud seeding industry is thriving in our governance-free present state of affairs. If you scrutinise this information, you will perhaps note an intention to convince the public, rather than give opportunity for the public to exercise the right to informed consent. See also the ecological hazards noted, as well as lack of regulatory framework.
https://markwideresearch.com/uk-cloud-seeding-market
If readers wish to research further into the global cloud seeding market, here is some key information: “The market is projected to grow from USD 428.6 million in 2025 to USD 738.2 million by 2032.”
https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/cloud-seeding-market-104073
Given that the UK is clearly now a test bed for these experimental technologies it is alarming that the discussion about how to regulate climate geoengineering hasn’t even begun here. In fact, we are falling far behind other parts of the world in this respect.
https://www.ciel.org/news/ciel-response-to-geoengineering-srm-technology-rejection-unea-6/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/greentech/a42624183/mexico-bans-solar-geoengineering
https://legiscan.com/US/text/HB4403/id/3262580
(U.S. Federal legislation (HB 4403) has been proposed to ban geoengineering and 33 U.S. States have now introduced prohibitive legislation, with three States passing legislation into law).
We have very much welcomed the debate that took place in June, but view this as just the beginning of an ongoing dialogue and full transparency on an issue which has such enormous implications for people and the environment. We also anticipate that the debate will be the starting point for the kinds of legislative developments that we are seeing in other parts of the world.
Thank you again for your attention to this urgent matter.
Please send this open letter to your MP and tell them that policy must be enacted including regulatory mechanisms to prohibit and penalise polluting geoengineering atmospheric interventions to protect human health and our environment.
Please circulate this open letter in your networks and please sign our previous open letter:
Open Letter: We do not consent to SRM experimentation
Deborah Short & Alex Klaushofer
Britons for a Clean Atmosphere
Contact: https://britonsforacleanatmosphere.uk/
27/08/25