A simulated negotiation to explore international regulation of climate engineering technology that reflects some sunlight to lower global temperatures ended without agreement. An analysis said competition for technological primacy and national interests between the United States and China took priority over the shared goal of responding to climate change, pushing even scientific discussion to the sidelines.

IT media outlet Ars Technica reported on Oct. 13 that researchers including teams at the University of Leeds and Queen Mary University of London conducted a simulation to assess international governance of solar radiation modification (SRM) technology.

SRM is a technology aimed at easing warming by reflecting some solar energy reaching Earth back into space. One frequently discussed approach is dispersing aerosol particles in the stratosphere. There are concerns about side effects such as changes in rainfall by region, extreme weather and a rapid temperature rise if the technology is halted.

The researchers recruited 35 people including diplomacy, science and security experts, and assigned them roles as countries, companies and non-governmental organisations. Participants held three rounds of simulated talks set in 2025, 2027 and 2028.

Conflict surfaced from the first round. Participants playing the United States and China rejected any agreement that would restrict their own research or cede a technological advantage to the other side.

Mutual distrust grew after Russia was given fictional information implying secret U.S. research activity. The U.S. side suspected China of unilateral technology development and demanded an international investigation.

Scientists' advice also had little impact on the talks. Participants showed interest in material supporting their national positions rather than objective explanations of climate impacts.

In the final stage, the simulation introduced a scenario in which the United States and Saudi Arabia jointly tested aerosols, but there was no agreement on monitoring and verification mechanisms.

The researchers cited strategic competition and issues of national sovereignty as reasons the three rounds of talks all failed.

Separately, the British government recently published an official policy document on SRM, stating it would support responsible research but does not back actual deployment of the technology.