Scientists Urge Caution Against Climate Engineering in the Arctic

Sat Sep 13 2025 10:51:56 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

A growing number of polar scientists are warning that geoengineering methods aimed at manipulating the Arctic environment could do more harm than good, urging a focus on reducing fossil fuel use instead.

In a recent assessment, over 40 researchers have raised alarms about the dangers and ineffectiveness of geoengineering strategies proposed to combat climate change in polar regions. They argue that these approaches not only risk severe environmental damage but also distract from essential efforts to achieve net-zero emissions. The scientists call for more focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions rather than resorting to risky and unproven interventions.

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. However, 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, such as removing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via planting trees or using machines, and are recognized parts of net zero efforts.

But some more radical geoengineering ideas, like reflecting sunlight, are deemed to deal with the symptoms of climate change rather than the causes. 'If they are promoted, then they are a distraction because to some people they will be a solution to the climate crisis that doesn't require decarbonising,' said lead author Martin Siegert, professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter.

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, according to the researchers.

With potential knock-on effects, such as disruption to weather patterns and the possibility of increased geopolitical tensions, the scientists argue that these methods could create the illusion of an alternative to cutting humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases.

Even supporters of geoengineering research agree that it should be a supplement to net zero, not a substitution. A UK government-backed agency recently announced nearly £60m of funding for geoengineering research, although there are no immediate plans for deployment.

Ultimately, the authors of the assessment urge prioritizing decarbonization and polar research over pursuing these risky geoengineering projects.