Scientists Urge Caution Against Risky Climate Engineering in the Arctic

Mon Oct 20 2025 06:35:08 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

A group of over 40 polar researchers caution against geoengineering techniques aimed at combating climate change, arguing that these methods could be harmful and ineffective in addressing the climate crisis.

In a recent publication, over 40 scientists warn against the dangers of geoengineering strategies, such as artificially influencing the Arctic environment to mitigate climate change. These methods, intended to cool the planet, may lead to severe environmental repercussions and distract from the essential goal of reducing fossil fuel use. The researchers emphasize the necessity of direct efforts towards achieving net zero emissions, considering geoengineering as an insufficient substitute for addressing the root causes of climate change.

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.

But 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, like removing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via planting trees or using machines, for example.

But some more radical geoengineering ideas, like reflecting sunlight, are dealing with the symptoms of climate change rather than the causes, said lead author Martin Siegert, professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter.

For opponents, the risks are simply too great – particularly for the fragile polar regions, about which much remains unknown. 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 and found that all fail to meet basic criteria for their feasibility and potential environmental risks.

The recent assessment raises very valid concerns about some of the ideas, but they need to be balanced against the risks from the perilous state of the climate, according to Dr. Shaun Fitzgerald, director of the University of Cambridge's Centre for Climate Repair.

In conclusion, while some researchers support geoengineering as a supplementary measure, they firmly assert that emissions reductions must remain the priority in the fight against climate change.

}