While not making headlines this month, the UAE’s cloud-seeding program continues to attract both attention and skepticism. Cloud seeding—dispersing substances like silver iodide or salt particles into clouds to encourage rainfall—has been part of the country’s water-security strategy for decades. The UAE’s National Center of Meteorology has long framed the practice as an innovative approach to supplement scarce freshwater resources in an arid climate.
Yet critics, particularly after the 2024 Gulf storms, have argued that the technology may worsen extreme rainfall events and flooding. During those storms, severe flooding inundated parts of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, prompting speculation on social media and in some regional outlets that cloud-seeding flights had intensified rainfall.
Officials and weather scientists have repeatedly rejected a causal link between cloud seeding and the floods. The UAE’s meteorological authorities have pointed out that storms are driven by large-scale atmospheric systems, and that cloud seeding cannot create storms from nothing—it can only enhance precipitation in clouds that already have potential for rain. The Times of India reported that international meteorological experts also dismissed claims that cloud seeding was a primary factor in the 2024 events, noting that the scale of rainfall was consistent with natural variability and climate-change-driven extremes.
This debate is instructive beyond meteorology. It illustrates how government-led interventions in environmental systems—whether in the atmosphere, the ocean, or on land—can be portrayed as bold solutions while also facing public doubt about unintended consequences.
Cloud seeding, like artificial reef construction or large-scale afforestation projects, often enjoys positive framing in official narratives and promotional campaigns. But without independent, peer-reviewed assessment, such projects can leave the public reliant on institutional claims. This information gap can breed suspicion, especially when interventions coincide with extreme or unexpected events.
Broader Implications
As America evaluates private climate-engineering companies like Make Sunsets, the UAE example underscores the need for:
Independent evaluation — Transparent, third-party assessments of environmental interventions.
Clear communication — Proactive public engagement on scientific limits and potential risks.
Data transparency — Open publication of monitoring results, allowing independent scrutiny.
These principles apply equally to ocean engineering projects, geoengineering proposals, and climate adaptation measures in other parts of the world. In each case, the balance between innovation and precaution determines not only the environmental outcome but also public trust. Since the UAE does not have a free press and does not accept criticism of its government it will likely take international pressure from the US and Europe to ensure that a regulatory body oversees cloud seeding projects undertaking in the UAE.
Related articles:
