Polar Geoengineering and its Risks
Context:
A new study, published in Frontiers in Science (Sept 2025), assessed five proposed geoengineering interventions for polar regions. The study concluded that all fail to meet essential criteria for responsible climate action and could cause severe global harm.
“Polar geoengineering refers to large-scale, deliberate technological interventions aimed at cooling and protecting the Earth’s polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) in order to slow ice melt, reduce sea-level rise, and mitigate global warming.”
Five Polar Geoengineering Proposals
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)
Aerosols (SO₂, TiO₂, CaCO₃) injected into upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight.
Concerns:
Ineffective in polar winters (no sunlight).
Poles already highly reflective (albedo effect).
Risk of termination shock: abrupt warming if stopped.
Global weather disruption → food/nutritional security risks.
Expensive and lacks international regulatory framework.
Sea Curtains/Sea Walls
Large underwater curtains to block warm ocean currents from glaciers.
Concerns:
Technical infeasibility (rugged seafloor, hostile regions).
Extremely high cost (> $1 billion/km).
Threat to marine ecosystems and nutrient cycles.
Sea Ice Management
Scattering microbeads or pumping seawater to thicken ice.
Concerns:
Toxicity to marine organisms (e.g., zooplankton).
Requires ~360 million tonnes of beads annually (equal to global plastic production).
May absorb sunlight → net warming.
Economically unviable ($500 billion/year).
Basal Water Removal
Draining subglacial meltwater to slow glacier flow.
Concerns:
Technically flawed and emission-intensive.
Requires continuous monitoring and high energy use.
Ocean Fertilisation
Adding nutrients (e.g., iron) to boost phytoplankton, capturing CO₂.
Concerns:
Risk of disturbing food webs and nutrient cycles.
Effects unpredictable; requires massive scale.
Risks and Challenges
Feasibility: Technically complex; e.g., 1 million seawater pumps per year required to cover 10% of Arctic.
Costs: Extremely high (e.g., >US$1 billion/km for sea curtains).
Environmental Risks:
Toxicity to marine life (microbeads, fertilisation).
Disruption of nutrient cycles and food webs.
Alteration of weather patterns.
Governance Issues:
No global framework for liability, costs, or monitoring.
Opposition from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties.
False Hopes: Risk of complacency; may be used as a pretext to delay emission cuts.
Core Findings of Study
All five methods pose severe environmental, economic, and governance risks.
Could disrupt ecosystems, circulation patterns, and global climate.
Costly, technically unfeasible, and socially contentious.
Do not address root cause: greenhouse gas emissions.
Alternatives to Geoengineering
Decarbonisation (most effective)
Reducing fossil fuel reliance (still >80% of global energy).
Renewable infrastructure, grid modernisation, storage expansion.
Tackling fossil-fuel lobbies and supply chain bottlenecks (lithium, cobalt).
Climate-resilient Development
Strengthening ecosystems, better conservation models.
Moving beyond fortress-style protected areas (which often alienate communities).
Inclusive, people-centric conservation that values traditional knowledge.
Immediate Co-benefits of Emission Reductions
Improved air quality, reduced pollution, public health gains.
Every tonne of CO₂ avoided today = fewer climate shocks tomorrow.
Conclusion
Polar geoengineering is an unproven, risky, and expensive technological fix. Current proposals fail against essential criteria of feasibility, safety, and governance. While they may appear attractive in a warming world, they risk distracting from the urgent priority of rapid decarbonisation and achieving net zero by 2050. Every tonne of CO₂ avoided today has immediate, real benefits — unlike speculative geoengineering.