Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects

Fossil-fuel burning is heating the planet with catastrophic consequences for its habitability and for the natural world on which our existence depends. Halting global warming requires rapid and deep decarbonization to “net zero” carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, which needs to be achieved by 2050 if warming is to remain within the limits set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, some scientists and engineers claim that a mid-century decarbonization target will not be reached, and they propose that we should focus on technological geoengineering “fixes” or “climate interventions” that could delay or mask some of the impacts of global warming. They often cite the need to slow warming in polar regions because they are experiencing rates of warming higher than the global average, with severe and irreversible projected consequences both locally (e.g., on fragile ecosystems) and globally (e.g., on sea level). Several geoengineering concepts exist for polar regions, but they have not been fully examined by the polar science community, nor integrated with an understanding of polar dynamics and responses. Here, we evaluate five of those polar geoengineering concepts and highlight the significant issues and risks relating to technological availability, logistical feasibility, cost, predictable adverse consequences, environmental damage, scalability (in space and time), governance, and ethics. According to our expert assessment, none of these geoengineering ideas pass scrutiny regarding their use in the coming decades. Instead, we find that the proposed concepts would be environmentally dangerous. It is clear to us that the assessed approaches are not feasible, and that further research into these techniques would not be an effective use of limited time and resources. It is vital that these ideas do not distract from the priority to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or from the critical need to conduct fundamental research in the polar regions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Science
Published
2025-09-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393
Citations
15
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.58

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects

Edward Gasson, Robert M. DeConto, Martin Truffer, Chris R. Stokes et al.
15 citations
Frontiers in Science
Climate Change and Geoengineering
16.58
article

Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects

Edward Gasson, Robert M. DeConto, Martin Truffer, Chris R. Stokes, L. A. Stearns, T. Naish, Robert D Larter, Jane Rumble, Joeri Rogelj, Chaitanya P. Nath, Twila Moon, S. Hancock, Deneb Karentz, Bernd Kulessa, Henry Burgess, Sian F. Henley, Martin Sommerkorn, Sammie Buzzard, Julie Brigham-Grette, Felicity S. McCormack, Pam Pearson, Adriana M. Gulisano, Alessandro Silvano, Marie G. P. Cavitte, Kevin A. Hughes, Florence Colleoni, Steven L. Chown, Ruth Mottram, Susie M. Grant, James D. Kirkham, Michael J. Bentley, Regine Hock, Helen Millman, Sarah Seabrook, Katharine Hendry, H. A. Fricker, Martín J. Siegert, Julienne Strœve, Heïdi Sevestre, Andrew N. Mackintosh, Ben Orlove, Valérie Masson-Delmotte
article en
15 citations

Abstract

Fossil-fuel burning is heating the planet with catastrophic consequences for its habitability and for the natural world on which our existence depends. Halting global warming requires rapid and deep decarbonization to “net zero” carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, which needs to be achieved by 2050 if warming is to remain within the limits set out by the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, some scientists and engineers claim that a mid-century decarbonization target will not be reached, and they propose that we should focus on technological geoengineering “fixes” or “climate interventions” that could delay or mask some of the impacts of global warming. They often cite the need to slow warming in polar regions because they are experiencing rates of warming higher than the global average, with severe and irreversible projected consequences both locally (e.g., on fragile ecosystems) and globally (e.g., on sea level). Several geoengineering concepts exist for polar regions, but they have not been fully examined by the polar science community, nor integrated with an understanding of polar dynamics and responses. Here, we evaluate five of those polar geoengineering concepts and highlight the significant issues and risks relating to technological availability, logistical feasibility, cost, predictable adverse consequences, environmental damage, scalability (in space and time), governance, and ethics. According to our expert assessment, none of these geoengineering ideas pass scrutiny regarding their use in the coming decades. Instead, we find that the proposed concepts would be environmentally dangerous. It is clear to us that the assessed approaches are not feasible, and that further research into these techniques would not be an effective use of limited time and resources. It is vital that these ideas do not distract from the priority to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or from the critical need to conduct fundamental research in the polar regions.

Frontiers in ScienceVol. 3
University of the Sciences (US), Foreign and Commonwealth Office (GB), Statistics New Zealand (NZ), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), British Antarctic Survey (GB), WWF Colombia (CO), eBay (Ireland) (IE), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE), University of Alaska Fairbanks (US), Natural Environment Research Council (GB), Scripps Institution of Oceanography (US), Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (US), Amherst College (US), University of Oslo (NO), Durham University (GB), National Oceanography Centre (GB), University of Exeter (GB), University of Cambridge (GB), University of Massachusetts Amherst (US), Université Paris-Saclay (FR), Grantham College (GB), Northumbria University (GB), Danish Meteorological Institute (DK), Swansea University (GB), Victoria University of Wellington (NZ), WWF Tanzania (TZ), Arctic Monitoring And Assessment Programme (NO), Education New Zealand (NZ), NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (GB), Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (FR), Argentine Antarctic Institute (AR), National Centre for Earth Observation (GB), Data & Society Research Institute (US), Institute of Astronomy and Space Physics (AR), Office of International Affairs (US), Bolin Centre for Climate Research (SE), National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics (IT), University of Manitoba (CA), Imperial College London (GB), Monash University (AU), University of San Francisco (US), University of Pennsylvania (US), Philadelphia University (US), University of Edinburgh (GB)
National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, UK Research and Innovation, European Commission, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, Norges Forskningsråd, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme, Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
16.58
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.