When it comes to determining the fate of our planet, Colleen Golja always believed that science and rational thinking would play a crucial role. However, her perspective shifted dramatically one September morning in London, when this climate researcher took part in the first of a series of war games. The aim was to avert an uncontrolled global race to develop technologies designed to cool the planet, technologies that carry enormous unknown risks that could fundamentally alter life on Earth.
“I thought it would be straightforward. We would all agree to conduct ethical research for the benefit of humanity. How wrong I was,” she reflects.
Gathering of Global Experts
The simulation, titled “Exploration of Geopolitical Tipping Points and Climate Cooling Strategies,” brought together dozens of experts in international relations, scientists, military personnel, and former officials from around the world at Queen Mary University in London. After introductions over coffee and yogurt, participants took their seats at square tables, each representing a different country or organisation: national governments, climate NGOs, non-profit organisations, indigenous groups, and tech companies.
Golja was tasked with providing technical advice to help participants make decisions based on scientific evidence.
The primary objective of the exercise was to test the global response to a set of potential technologies collectively referred to as “solar radiation modification.” These technologies promise to reverse global warming by reflecting a portion of the sunlight that reaches the Earth, for instance, by spraying particles of sulphur dioxide or other synthetic substances into the atmosphere. The cooling effects of such solar geoengineering are well-supported, mimicking the known impacts of large volcanic eruptions that temporarily cool the planet by half a degree or more. However, the consequences remain uncertain and unequal.
Some regions would be disproportionately affected; models predict increased drought in sub-Saharan Africa and more intense tropical storms in the Atlantic. Furthermore, the cooling effect would only persist as long as the geoengineering was maintained; after that, global temperatures might surge again with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic effects.
The Shift to Solar Geoengineering
Until recently, solar radiation modification was considered a speculative niche within climate science. However, this perception has rapidly changed. Private companies are now exploring solar geoengineering as a commercial opportunity: last year, a US-Israeli startup named Stardust Solutions raised $60 million and, in May, unveiled details of new inventions that would “give humans the ability to reduce global temperatures at will.” In August, Elon Musk, whose company SpaceX could potentially facilitate geoengineering interventions, advocated for solar geoengineering, stating on X that “space satellites will be needed to control temperature and large-scale geoengineering, or it’s game over.”
Cynthia Scharf, a former UN advisor, emphasised that decisions about regulating this technology will have to be made far sooner than most policymakers envision: “It won’t be in fifteen years; it will be within the next decade.”
A Race Against Time
In this context, Danielle Young, an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Leeds, organised the simulation game. The scenario involved a hastily convened UN committee tasked with coordinating the international response to advancements in solar geoengineering. The game unfolded through simulated meetings set in three distinct timeframes: the present, September 2027, and September 2028. With each stage, the stakes escalated, and the game creators introduced new advancements in solar light reflection technology. As in real life, not all facts were known, and participants had to respond to events that brought the world closer to an attempt at large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technology, even while lacking a complete understanding of what had truly transpired or what others were plotting.
The initial session set a troubling precedent. Distrust and misinformation pervaded the atmosphere. During discussions of rules governing outdoor experiments in an effort to reach an international agreement, representatives from both the US and China communicated to the group that they could not sign an agreement that would limit their research, deemed a “national interest.” Nor could they agree to any pact that would allow their rival superpower to gain a technological edge. Jeffrey Nielsen, a US Army commander who role-played as a national security advisor, summarised the stance by stating that “worse than reaching no agreement is any agreement that favours China.”
Escalating Tensions
Tensions escalated when the simulation team presented Russian delegates with an “intelligence report” indicating that an aircraft near the Bering Strait was believed to be involved in a US geoengineering research programme. The US research team accused Russia of spreading disinformation.
Simultaneously, the US began to suspect that China was also conducting research and developing its own programme. Chinese representatives attempted to include a clause in a proposed agreement that would prevent retroactive sanctions for prior experiments. Subsequently, China approached a participant representing SpaceX to discuss the idea of a technology exchange programme. In a private conversation outside the group, the SpaceX player immediately informed the US team about the Chinese proposal, leading to demands for an international investigation. Accusations continued to fly, and the countries abandoned negotiations, with the Canadian representative labelling it a “humiliating defeat.”
A Fractured Dialogue
By the end of the session, Nielsen was euphoric. He believed he had unmasked China and thwarted any possibility of a global agreement. He declared to WIRED that it was a “huge victory” for the Americans. However, Young, the designer of the simulation scenario, indicated that the Chinese were not conducting experiments in the game. The mutual distrust led all participants to leave the room believing that others were rushing to develop their own geoengineering capabilities.
The dynamics observed during the first session mirrored “the likelihood of an arms race in geoengineering,” Nielsen noted, clarifying that he spoke personally and not on behalf of the US government. Most experts agree that the capabilities of a superpower would be necessary to ensure the safe passage of aircraft required to deploy payloads of dust into the stratosphere for geoengineering purposes. Yet neither the US nor China would easily relinquish control over the “global thermostat,” Nielsen remarked, highlighting the significant risk posed by distrust and communication breakdowns: “Any action related to this issue by one actor could be perceived as malevolent by the other.”
Competing Interests and the Future
The fear of falling behind a rival serves as a “powerful driver for research and capability development. But that is not at all the same as deployment,” stated a former British diplomat with national security experience. There are similarities to the dynamics of nuclear weapons, although these have more apparent advantages and disadvantages, many of which are still not well understood. “Here, there is interdependence. It does not mean that for one to win, another has to lose,” the former diplomat, who did not participate in the game and spoke anonymously to protect relationships, explained.
Scharf, who represented the US government alongside Nielsen in the game, argued that international collaboration based on scientific transparency between China and the US is a viable option to avoid dangerous competition. “But I can’t imagine that happening under a Trump administration.”
Scientific Knowledge and Distrust
Adding to the complexity is the lack of information. Historically, geoengineering has been viewed with suspicion and often ignored by the dominant scientific community. One researcher shared with WIRED that he faced political exile and encountered obstacles in his academic progression due to his interest in this technology; he no longer works in the field.
This lack of scientific interest greatly frustrated Golja, who spent much of the process observing as a mere spectator while political positions took centre stage. Given the limited knowledge surrounding solar radiation modification and its side effects, she was one of the few experts capable of helping participants understand the climatic repercussions of their discussions; however, her input was largely overlooked. “I was incredibly surprised by how little anyone actually cared about the science,” she remarked.
Attempts to Refocus the Discussion
In subsequent sessions, organisers sought to redirect discussions toward the realities of climate change. Participants received frequent notifications about climate disasters, which barely registered. Golja had prepared a “demonstrator,” a practical display based on the best available scientific data on how solar radiation management could affect weather patterns in different regions. It was ignored. When representatives from countries posed questions, they often sought data that could serve their agendas or portray a rival’s proposal as reckless.
On the final day, participants grappled with how to respond to reports of a large aerosol cloud that had been detected. In the simulation, this was triggered by a joint test of US and Saudi Arabian technology from Stardust, although not everyone was aware of this. Ultimately, scientific advice proved invaluable. Countries needed to understand how to establish a monitoring network with satellites and other observational tools to prevent such tests from occurring covertly. A player representing an NGO called Climate Futures Cooperative (CFC) approached Golja, offering funding for this project.
Manipulation and Disillusionment
“Great. Why wouldn’t I do it?” she recalls thinking.
However, it soon emerged that the CFC was backed by the fossil fuel industry. Organisers recognised that oil companies and major producing nations, like the US and Saudi Arabia, would have a clear interest in removing barriers to the development of technology that could combat climate change without having to cease burning coal, oil, and gas immediately. The shadowy NGO undermined