In which the ill advisory of five geoengineering concepts for the polar regions are discussed. Climate change impacts are especially pronounced in the polar regions. Instead of reducing carbon emissions, concepts have been devised to geoengineer instead: 1) stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) 2) sea curtains 3) sea ice management 4) slowing ice sheet flow 5) ocean fertilization. Obviously, all only mask impacts rather than address root causes. For 1), would require 60k flights annually for lasting effect. Ending in future would cause rapid immediate warming. Would have no impact on polar regions in winter (no sunlight). Cause ozone depletion. Disrupt global climate patterns. Who governs? Cost at least $1 billion/year.
2) Sea curtains/walls: prevent warm water from reaching polar areas. Engineering, deploying in harsh polar environment? Cause massive disruption of oceans, marine life, pollution, huge emissions to construct and maintain. Cost: at least $80 billion. Governance/Antarctic treaty? 3) Modify albedo/thicken sea ice. Spread hollow glass beads, 360 megatons of glass yearly? (Same as global plastic production) Eco implications unknown. Might actually absorb heat and cause warming. Thicken ice: spray sea water on ice. Would require 1 million pumps. Won't provide any mitigation. Cost $50 billion/yr.
4) Slow ice flow through basal water removal (drill/dry, cooling, obstructions). Drill/dry limited feasibility. Deform ice sheets. Require 1 MW per hole ($10-20 million costs?). High impact on sensitive ecosystems. 5) Ocean fertilisation: add nutrients (iron) to promote photosynthesis. Impacts of fisheries, how many ships? Cause de-oxygenation, produce methane and NO2? Costs: $100-1000/ton CO2 (to offset yearly fossil fuels emissions of 40 billion tons?).
Geoengineering debunking: mitigation is currently scaling up, should use all the options (not if it is a bad option), won't "buy us time" (distraction and diverting time and resources to geoengineering), focus should be on emission reductions. Geoengineering gives false hope that anything but deep emission cuts are necessary, causing complacency and delays (and cover) to continue emissions while pretending to take action.
161 #365papers
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393/full
Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects
Frontiers | 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. Halti...

Frontiers