PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 16, 2025Frontiers in Science24 citationsOpen Access

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

View Full Paper
MSMartín J. SiegertHSHeïdi SevestreMBMichael J. Bentley

Key Points

  • Geoengineering concepts for polar regions are deemed environmentally dangerous and unfeasible, undermining climate efforts.
  • Evaluation of five proposed geoengineering ideas shows significant risks related to environmental damage and feasibility.
  • The need to address climate change via rapid decarbonization is paramount, overriding geoengineering distractions.
  • Further research on these geoengineering techniques is not recommended, as it diverts resources from crucial emissions reduction initiatives.

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Siegert et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d4565431b076d99fa5af46https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The long-term sea-level commitment from Antarctica2024 · 19 citations
  2. 2High-latitude controls of thermocline nutrients and low latitude biological productivity2003 · 1,440 citations
  3. 3Changes in Antarctic surface conditions and potential for ice shelf hydrofracturing from 1850 to 22002025 · 7 citations
  4. 4Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against2019 · 2,179 citations
  5. 5Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall2013 · 387 citations