Plans to fight climate change by manipulating the Arctic and Antarctic environment are dangerous, unlikely to work, and could distract from the need to ditch fossil fuels, dozens of polar scientists have warned.
These polar geoengineering techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thickening sea-ice or releasing tiny, reflective particles into the atmosphere. They have gained attention as potential future tools to combat global warming, alongside cutting carbon emissions. But more than 40 researchers say they could bring severe environmental damage and urged countries to simply focus on reaching net zero, the only established way to limit global warming.
Geoengineering - deliberately intervening in the Earth's climate system to counter the impacts of global warming - is one of the most controversial areas of climate research. Some types are widely accepted - removing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via planting trees or using machines, for example, are recognized parts of net-zero efforts. Net zero means balancing the amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases produced by human activities with the amount being actively removed from the atmosphere.
But some more radical geoengineering ideas, like reflecting sunlight, are seen as addressing the symptoms of climate change rather than the causes, said lead author Martin Siegert, professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter.
While supporters believe it's worth exploring techniques to help rein in rapidly rising temperatures that are already causing severe impacts, opponents contend that the risks—particularly for fragile polar regions—are too significant.
The scientists behind the new assessment, published in the journal Frontiers in Science, reviewed the evidence for five of the most widely discussed polar geoengineering ideas. All fail to meet basic criteria for their feasibility and potential environmental risks, they say.
One proposal involves releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, which has become a focal point for misinformation amid conspiracy theories. Concerns center on how these interventions could disrupt global weather patterns, leading to potential geopolitical tensions over management in these regions.
Some ideas, although considered theoretically possible, are deemed economically unviable, making them unlikely to contribute meaningfully to climate crisis solutions. Instead, the scientists call for a commitment to emissions reductions as the primary approach to tackling climate change, as these geoengineering proposals could distract from the necessary actions to cut humanity's carbon output.
These polar geoengineering techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thickening sea-ice or releasing tiny, reflective particles into the atmosphere. They have gained attention as potential future tools to combat global warming, alongside cutting carbon emissions. But more than 40 researchers say they could bring severe environmental damage and urged countries to simply focus on reaching net zero, the only established way to limit global warming.
Geoengineering - deliberately intervening in the Earth's climate system to counter the impacts of global warming - is one of the most controversial areas of climate research. Some types are widely accepted - removing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via planting trees or using machines, for example, are recognized parts of net-zero efforts. Net zero means balancing the amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases produced by human activities with the amount being actively removed from the atmosphere.
But some more radical geoengineering ideas, like reflecting sunlight, are seen as addressing the symptoms of climate change rather than the causes, said lead author Martin Siegert, professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter.
While supporters believe it's worth exploring techniques to help rein in rapidly rising temperatures that are already causing severe impacts, opponents contend that the risks—particularly for fragile polar regions—are too significant.
The scientists behind the new assessment, published in the journal Frontiers in Science, reviewed the evidence for five of the most widely discussed polar geoengineering ideas. All fail to meet basic criteria for their feasibility and potential environmental risks, they say.
One proposal involves releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, which has become a focal point for misinformation amid conspiracy theories. Concerns center on how these interventions could disrupt global weather patterns, leading to potential geopolitical tensions over management in these regions.
Some ideas, although considered theoretically possible, are deemed economically unviable, making them unlikely to contribute meaningfully to climate crisis solutions. Instead, the scientists call for a commitment to emissions reductions as the primary approach to tackling climate change, as these geoengineering proposals could distract from the necessary actions to cut humanity's carbon output.
