Polar geoengineering: a new study involving OGS shows that new approaches are not useful and can even be harmful

Polar geoengineering — a series of large-scale physical and technological interventions designed to counteract or slow the melting of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic — is not an effective solution to climate change. On the contrary, it could entail considerable ecological, political and economic risks.

This is the conclusion of a new assessment published in Frontiers in Science and authored by an international group of over 40 polar scientists, including OGS glaciologist Florence Colleoni.

The analysis examined five of the most widely discussed geoengineering projects: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), underwater barriers or curtains to redirect warm currents, artificial thickening of sea ice, pumping and removal of groundwater from glaciers, and ocean fertilisation.

As the authors of the study point out, while all of these geoengineering measures are intended to protect polar ice, they actually have serious limitations in terms of their effectiveness and costs, which could run into tens of billions of dollars. In addition to logistical challenges, the proposals pose significant environmental risks (from loss of marine biodiversity to ozone layer depletion) as well as legal and diplomatic issues related to the international governance of polar regions. Furthermore, many geoengineering projects run the risk of becoming easy speculative shortcuts for those who want to avoid real emissions reductions through far less effective alternatives.

“The intentions behind these ideas are understandable, but the risk is that they divert attention and resources away from what we already know works: reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” explains Florence Colleoni. “Only a determined decarbonisation strategy can truly protect the polar regions and the planet.”

The authors emphasise that achieving climate neutrality by 2050 remains the most important goal. Achieving this goal would stabilise global warming within a few decades, with tangible benefits for the polar regions and the rest of the world.

“We still have the time and the means to act successfully,” concludes Martin Siegert, lead author of the study and professor at the University of Exeter, “provided we focus our efforts, resources and expertise on reducing emissions without relying on speculative and potentially counterproductive solutions.”