Is your business prepared for the risks of climate engineering? 🌍 Our latest article breaks down why the U.S. Congress is investigating and provides 6 actionable risk management tips you need to adopt now.
#Geoengineering #BusinessRisk #RiskManagement
While research into climate-altering technologies is advancing, the evolving legal landscape and potential for unintended consequences mean business leaders can no longer afford to treat geoengineering as a distant speculation. It is a developing enterprise risk that demands immediate attention.
What Are Weather Modification and Geoengineering?
These terms refer to deliberate, large-scale interventions in Earth’s systems:
- Weather Modification aims for short-term, local changes to weather patterns. The most common technique is cloud seeding, which involves dispersing substances like silver iodide into clouds to enhance precipitation or snowpack . It is practiced in several U.S. states, primarily to combat drought. Geoengineering (or climate intervention) seeks to counteract climate change on a regional or global scale. The two main approaches are:
- Solar Radiation Management (SRM): Techniques like stratospheric aerosol injection, which aims to cool the planet by reflecting sunlight away from Earth, similar to the effect of a large volcanic eruption .
- Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR): Methods that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere or ocean .
A key distinction is that weather modification is intended for local, short-term effects, while geoengineering is designed for larger, longer-lasting impacts .
The Shifting Regulatory and Oversight Landscape
The governance of these technologies is in flux, moving from scientific debate into the political and legal arena, which directly impacts business risk.
- Growing Political Scrutiny: The U.S. Congress is showing increased interest. A subcommittee in the House of Representatives has held hearings demanding transparency on government weather and climate engineering activities . This political focus highlights the issue’s rising profile and the potential for future regulations.
- Emerging State-Level Bans: In the absence of comprehensive federal law, states are taking action. Florida recently passed a law prohibiting the intentional release of substances to alter weather, temperature, or sunlight, making it a felony . Similar bills have been introduced in states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina . This creates a complex patchwork of regulations for companies operating across state lines.
- Lack of International Framework: There is no binding international treaty governing solar geoengineering research or deployment . This legal vacuum creates uncertainty for global businesses and raises the risk of international disputes if one country’s actions are perceived to cause harm in another .
Why This Matters for Global Businesses
For business leaders, this is not a theoretical environmental issue but a tangible source of strategic risk.
- New Physical and Operational Risks: Geoengineering could create novel and unpredictable climate conditions. A company’s risk management must now consider scenarios like “termination shock”—a rapid and dangerous temperature increase if a sustained solar geoengineering program were to suddenly stop . This could threaten supply chains, agricultural production, and infrastructure in ways that existing climate models do not capture.
- Perception and Geopolitical Risks: Even the perception of geoengineering can be destabilizing. In a world of geopolitical competition, a natural disaster could be wrongly or rightly attributed to a rival’s weather modification program, leading to political tensions that disrupt global trade and markets . Businesses could be caught in the crossfire of such disputes.
- Legal and Reputational Exposure: As seen with the state-level bans, companies involved in or perceived to be supporting these technologies could face legal liability, hefty fines, and reputational damage . The lack of a clear regulatory framework makes it difficult to assess and mitigate these risks.
Risk Management Tips for Business Leaders
Enterprises should take proactive, low-regret actions now to build resilience against these emerging threats .
- Integrate Climate Intervention into Enterprise Risk Management (ERM): ERM teams should formally assess how geoengineering could impact the organization. This involves interviewing key stakeholders to evaluate visibility (awareness of risks), agility (ability to adapt plans), and resilience (capacity to recover from disruptions).
- Develop Specific Key Risk Indicators (KRIs): Move beyond general climate metrics. Create KRIs that directly tie to geoengineering and extreme weather, such as the value of assets in regions proposing geoengineering bans or the percentage of supply chain partners located in high-risk weather modification zones.
- Model Multiple Financial Scenarios: Use climate-risk financial modeling tools to estimate the potential financial impact of both the physical effects of geoengineering and the transition risks from new regulations. These calculations help quantify the value at risk.
- Strengthen Supply Chain Redundancy and Diversification: Geoengineering could alter regional weather patterns, benefiting some areas and harming others. Diversify suppliers and logistics routes to avoid over-concentration in any single geographic region that might be disproportionately affected.
- Invest in Data Gathering and Digital Resilience: The ability to monitor and model these new risks depends on data. Invest in cloud-based risk management software to process complex climate and regulatory data streams. Ensure digital operations are resilient to adapt quickly to new information.
- Conduct a Regulatory Horizon Scan: Proactively monitor the evolving regulatory landscape at state, federal, and international levels. This is crucial for anticipating new compliance requirements and avoiding costly legal surprises .
The decisions made by governments and scientists about geoengineering will have profound implications for the stability of the global climate and, by extension, the global economy . By understanding these technologies and implementing a robust risk management strategy now, business leaders can protect their assets and build a more resilient enterprise for an uncertain future.
Get help to protect and grow your business faster with less uncertainty
Find out more about growing your business faster with BusinessRiskTV
Subscribe for free business risk management ideas risk reviews and cost reduction ideas
Connect with us for free business risk management tips
Read more free business risk management articles and view videos
Connect with us for free alerts to new business risk management news reviews and tips
Geoengineering Business Risk Management: Why Congress Is Investigating and 6 Tips to Protect Your Company
Has geoengineering and weather modification been going on in U.S. for more than 70 years according to recent congressional investigations in November 2025?
Based on the available information, a recent U.S. congressional investigation did discuss a history of federal involvement in weather modification.
A hearing titled “Playing God with the Weather — a Disastrous Forecast” was held on September 16, 2025, by a House Oversight subcommittee. During this hearing, the subcommittee chair, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, stated that “the history of the federal government’s involvement in geoengineering is poorly understood” and that the American people lack transparency on how their tax dollars are being spent on these activities.
🗓️ Evidence of Long-Standing Government Involvement
While the recent hearing did not explicitly quantify the timeline, other evidence points to a long history of U.S. engagement with weather modification concepts.
· Historical Legislation: The U.S. Congress passed the National Weather Modification Policy Act in 1976, which directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop a national policy on the matter. This indicates official federal interest and regulation over 45 years ago.
· Ongoing Reporting: Under the authority of a 1971 law (Public Law 92-205), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has kept records of weather modification projects for decades. As of 2025, NOAA’s website lists several active, authorized weather modification projects, primarily for rain enhancement and hail suppression in Texas.
· Military Conceptual Research: A 1996 U.S. Air Force research paper titled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” explored the potential for weather modification technologies to be used for military purposes by the year 2025. This shows that such ideas have been seriously studied within the Department of Defense.
🔍 Scientific and Regulatory Context
It’s important to distinguish between different types of activities discussed in the hearing and the broader scientific context.
· Current, Limited Techniques: The primary weather modification technique in use today is cloud seeding, which involves dispersing substances like silver iodide or salt particles into clouds to encourage precipitation. This has been practiced for decades, but its effectiveness is considered limited and it is not deployed during heavy rain forecasts or in flood-prone areas.
· Proposed, Large-Scale Concepts: The hearing also discussed solar geoengineering (or Solar Radiation Modification), which refers to proposed, large-scale techniques to reflect sunlight back into space.
Based on witness statements, weather modification activities have indeed been implemented in the United States for over 70 years.
During the November 2025 congressional investigations, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. testified that “weather modification activities have been widely implemented in the United States and around the world for 70 years.” This statement provides official acknowledgment of a long history of deliberate weather intervention.
The primary technique used throughout this period has been cloud seeding, which involves dispensing substances like silver iodide or dry ice into clouds to encourage precipitation. This technology was first developed in 1946, marking the beginning of the 70-year timeline referenced in the hearing.
The U.S. government’s involvement began shortly after these technologies emerged. President Eisenhower created the U.S. Advisory Committee on Weather Control in 1953, demonstrating official interest in developing these capabilities. This governmental engagement continued with large-scale projects like Project Stormfury (1962-1983), which aimed to weaken hurricanes, and Operation Popeye (1967-1972), a covert U.S. Air Force program that extended monsoon seasons to disrupt enemy supply lines during the Vietnam War.
The historical record shows consistent regulatory attention to these activities. A 1972 law specifically defines and requires reporting of weather modification, and currently nine states maintain active cloud seeding programs.
It’s important to distinguish between these long-standing local weather modification practices and the more theoretical concept of global geoengineering. While cloud seeding has a 70-year operational history for localized effects like increasing rainfall, large-scale solar geoengineering proposals to counteract global warming remain theoretical and have never been deployed operationally.
The congressional hearing thus confirmed that certain forms of weather modification have been practiced for decades, while bringing renewed scrutiny to both their history and potential future applications.
The UK’s Geoengineering and Weather Modification Posture
The UK government’s current engagement is characterised by a strong push for research into Solar Radiation Management (SRM), while its framework for climate adaptation is assessed as insufficient.
🔬 A Leader in Geoengineering Research
The UK, through its Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), has become one of the world’s largest funders of geoengineering research. In 2025, ARIA committed approximately $60 million (around £50 million) to a program focused on “climate-cooling” technologies. This initiative includes 21 projects, five of which are small-scale, controlled outdoor experiments designed to gather physical data that computer models cannot provide.
The funded research explores several high-profile SRM techniques:
· Marine Cloud Brightening: Testing whether spraying seawater into low-lying marine clouds can make them more reflective.
· Stratospheric Aerosol Injection: Using weather balloons to investigate how reflective particles, such as mineral dust, interact with the air at high altitudes, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions.
· Arctic Ice Protection: A project named “RASi” is experimenting with pumping seawater onto existing ice floes in the Canadian Arctic to refreeze and thicken them.
Government scientists argue that with the increasing threat of climate “tipping points,” researching a potential “emergency brake” is a necessary precaution. ARIA has stated that all outdoor experiments will undergo environmental assessments, will not release toxic substances, and will be designed with safety and reversibility in mind.
📜 Policy, Regulation, and Adaptation
The UK’s approach to the broader policy and adaptation landscape shows significant gaps:
· Inadequate Climate Adaptation: According to the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC), the UK’s preparations for climate change are “inadequate.” The government’s Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) has been ineffective, with adaptation progress described as “too slow, has stalled, or is heading in the wrong direction” . This failure to adapt proactively increases the UK’s vulnerability to existing climate risks.
· Historical Scrutiny, Not Active Deployment: A search of government publications reveals no evidence of ongoing operational weather modification. Past parliamentary reports, such as a 2010 inquiry by the Science and Technology Committee, have primarily focused on understanding and potentially regulating these emerging technologies rather than deploying them.
· Regulatory Vacuum: There is currently no comprehensive national or international legal framework specifically governing geoengineering. This lack of clear regulation is a primary source of risk and controversy.
⚠️ Key Risk Factors for Businesses
The UK’s stance creates a complex and uncertain risk environment that business leaders must navigate.
· The “Moral Hazard” and Reputational Risk: Research indicates that developing geoengineering can create a “moral hazard”—the perception that it is a technological fix that reduces the urgency of cutting carbon emissions. Companies associated with or supportive of these technologies could face significant reputational damage, being accused of promoting a “dangerous distraction” from the essential transition away from fossil fuels.
· Geopolitical and Legal Instability: The lack of an international governance framework means that even small-scale experiments could “destabilise an already tense geopolitical context”. If one country’s geoengineering is perceived to cause adverse weather in another, it could lead to international disputes and trade tensions. Businesses could be caught in the crossfire of such conflicts, facing unpredictable regulatory changes across different markets.
· Physical and Transition Risks: SRM technologies could have unintended consequences, such as shifting rainfall patterns and potentially disrupting global agriculture and supply chains. Furthermore, if a large-scale SRM program were ever started and then suddenly stopped, it could trigger “termination shock”—a rapid and catastrophic rebound in global temperatures. Business continuity plans must now consider these novel and extreme climate scenarios.
· Public Opposition and Lack of Social License: Geoengineering remains highly controversial. The ARIA program has been criticized for lacking public consent. Past outdoor experiments in other countries have been cancelled due to public opposition, creating regulatory and execution risk for any projects that lack broad social acceptance.
💡 A Strategic Outlook for Business Leaders
The UK government is positioning itself as a central hub for high-risk, high-reward geoengineering research, viewing it as a necessary exploration of a potential climate “emergency brake”. However, this path is fraught with significant environmental, geopolitical, and social risks that are not yet matched by robust governance. For businesses, this represents a new frontier of strategic risk that requires vigilant monitoring and agile planning.
Join business risk management club here