Polar Geoengineering Projects Deemed Unfeasible and Dangerous

Plans to fight climate change by intervening in the ecosystems of the Arctic and Antarctic carry serious risks, are unlikely to be effective, and could distract from the core task of phasing out fossil fuels, dozens of polar scientists warn.

The methods of so-called "polar geoengineering" envision unconventional ways of cooling the planet: from artificially thickening sea ice to spraying tiny reflective particles into the atmosphere. These ideas are considered potential complements to cutting carbon emissions, but more than 40 researchers have warned that they could cause "serious ecological harm" and urged governments to focus on achieving carbon neutrality—the only recognized strategy for curbing global warming.

Geoengineering—deliberate intervention in the Earth’s climate system to counteract the effects of global warming—remains one of the most controversial areas of research. Some methods are accepted as part of climate policy, such as afforestation or technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But more radical ideas, such as reflecting sunlight, "treat the symptoms rather than the cause," stressed study lead Professor Martin Siegert, a geoscientist at the University of Exeter. Supporters argue that such approaches should at least be studied to see whether they can slow the rise in temperatures already harming ecosystems and people. Opponents, however, insist the risks are too great—especially in vulnerable polar regions that remain poorly understood.

An assessment published in the journal "Frontiers in Science" of five of the most discussed projects found that none met basic criteria for feasibility and environmental safety. One proposal involves spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. The idea has long attracted the attention of conspiracy theorists, who see airplane contrails as evidence of a secret "climate weapon." But scientists have real objections—such aerosols could disrupt global weather cycles and spark political conflict: if one country decided to deploy them in the Arctic or Antarctic against the objections of others, it could, according to climate scientist Valérie Masson-Delmotte of the University of Paris-Saclay, "exacerbate geopolitical tensions."

Other proposals are prohibitively costly and technically near impossible. For example, a plan to pump seawater onto Arctic ice in winter to increase its thickness would require an estimated 10 million pumps just to cover 10 percent of the region. The main danger, the review’s authors warn, is that such projects create the illusion of an alternative to decarbonization. "If they begin to be promoted as the solution, they will become a distraction. It will give people the false impression that there is a way to fight the crisis without cutting carbon," noted Professor Siegert.

Even supporters of such research admit that geoengineering is no substitute—at best, it can only complement emissions cuts. "Reductions must come first, otherwise almost everything else is meaningless," said Shaun Fitzgerald, director of the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge, who is involved in several such projects. He acknowledged that the review presents "very strong arguments" against a number of ideas, but argued they should be weighed against the threat of "catastrophic climate conditions." He does not support large-scale deployment of the technologies, conceding that further study may prove their "absurdity." But research, in his view, would allow for "more informed decisions."

The UK government recently allocated nearly £60 million to such projects, while stressing that it does not plan to implement them. The review’s authors, however, are convinced that efforts and resources should be directed not toward utopian schemes but toward genuine decarbonization and fundamental polar research. "There are obvious truths that do not require much science to understand: these ideas are simply unworkable," Professor Siegert concluded.