Climate experts just reviewed five big polar geoengineering schemes aimed at combating climate change. Unfortunately, these proposals are likely to cause greater environmental harm. These concepts encompass stratospheric aerosol injections, sea curtains, sea ice management, basal water removal, and ocean fertilization. Despite all the hype, they haven’t been proven empirically to stand up to implementation well enough to warrant their use.
Prof. Martin Siegert, a notable figure in climate research, emphasizes that these geoengineering schemes could shift attention away from critical systemic changes necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Critics say no matter how well-meaning the intentions are behind these proposals. Despite providing an essential step toward justice, they are fundamentally flawed and would still pose serious threats to ecosystems, communities, international relations, and the global momentum toward achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
Overview of Polar Geoengineering Proposals
Of all five concepts of geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI) are the most well known. They include geoengineering methods such as intentionally injecting reflecting particles, including sulfate aerosols, into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet. Prior to this work, researchers had only tested this approach through computer modeling. No real-world car-to-bike experimentation has occurred to examine its effectiveness or safety.
Another $75 million proposal would create sea curtains—flexible barriers anchored to the seafloor to stop warm water from eroding ice shelves. By their own projections, an 80-kilometer long sea curtain would cost $80 billion over a 10-year period. As defenders of the environment point out, such infrastructure could irreparably disturb marine ecosystems.
Sea ice management proposes techniques such as pumping seawater onto ice to artificially thicken it or scattering glass microbeads to increase reflectivity. These methods are unethical and create real and harmful ecological dangers. They can darken ice surfaces and create a demand for large pumping infrastructure.
A method focused on slowing ice sheet flow by pumping subglacial water away from glaciers. This notion has so far been largely unexplored beyond early, exploratory drilling efforts. Finally, geoengineering ocean fertilization seeks to stimulate polar oceans by dumping nutrients like iron. This process catalyzes widespread phytoplankton blooms, sucking atmospheric carbon deep into the oceans when the bloom dies out. This approach is very limited under United Nations regulations, as it is considered marine pollution.
Risks and Consequences
The directors of climate initiatives Goldman and Greenfield insist that each of these proposals has inherent environmental dangers. Prof. Siegert highlighted that doing science on these approaches can reveal their promise and hazards. He cautioned that this focus should not deflect us from the need for urgent action. Action to cut emissions now.
“These ideas are often well-intentioned, but they’re flawed. As a community, climate scientists and engineers are doing all we can to reduce the harms of the climate crisis—but deploying any of these five polar projects is likely to work against the polar regions and planet.” – Prof Martin Siegert
The risks of geoengineering sea ice, especially, call into question the ethics of unintended ecological consequences. Painting or using glass beads can result in darker asphalt surfaces on ice. This may correspond to increased absorption of sunlight, which in turn may speed up the melting.
Furthermore, the fiscal impacts of these proposals are significant to dismiss. The upfront and ongoing costs of establishing and maintaining these geoengineering projects are tallied at no less than $10 billion. These billions would be better directed toward tried-and-true strategies that actually cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Path Forward
Experts agree that rather than investing in speculative geoengineering projects, the focus should remain on established methods of reducing emissions. UNEP’s Dr. Heidi Sevestre calls for a redirection of effort and finances away from such unproven technologies and toward evidence-based climate action.
“If we instead combine our limited resources towards treating the cause instead of the symptoms, we have a fair shot at reaching net zero and restoring our climate’s health.” – Dr. Heidi Sevestre
The message is clear: while exploring new solutions is essential, it should not come at the cost of immediate action. Prof. Siegert adds that reaching net zero emissions will stabilize global heating within two decades, allowing temperatures to stop climbing and benefiting polar regions and life on Earth.
“The good news is that we have existing goals that we know will work. Global heating will likely stabilize within 20 years of us reaching net zero. Temperatures would stop climbing, offering substantial benefits for the polar regions, the planet, and all lifeforms.” – Prof Martin Siegert