Polar Geoengineering

Polar Geoengineering: Assessing Feasibility, Risks, and Governance

Main Takeaway: Polar geoengineering proposals—ranging from solar radiation management to sea ice thickening—are largely impractical, costly, and pose significant environmental and governance challenges. Effective protection of polar regions hinges on rapid decarbonization and emissions reductions, not large-scale technological interventions.

1. Defining Polar Geoengineering

Polar geoengineering comprises intentional, large-scale interventions aimed at slowing or reversing ice loss in the Arctic and Antarctic. It spans two broad categories:

• Carbon dioxide removal (CDR): Techniques to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere, e.g., ocean fertilization.

• Solar radiation modification (SRM): Approaches to increase Earth’s reflectivity, e.g., stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) or surface albedo enhancement.

2. Major Proposed Techniques

Five of the most advanced polar geoengineering concepts are:

1. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI): Dispersing reflective particles (e.g., sulfur dioxide) in the stratosphere to deflect sunlight.

2. Sea Curtains: Underwater barriers anchored to redirect warm currents away from ice shelves.

3. Sea Ice Management:

   1. Spreading hollow glass microspheres on young ice to boost reflectivity.

   2. Pumping seawater onto ice to thicken it or into the atmosphere to induce snowfall.

4. Basal Water Removal: Extracting meltwater beneath glaciers to increase basal friction and slow ice flow.

5. Ocean Fertilization: Adding nutrients (e.g., iron) to polar waters to stimulate phytoplankton growth and enhance CO₂ sequestration.

3. Technical and Economic Feasibility

• Scale Requirements:

  • SAI focused on polar latitudes would require continuous high-altitude flights and precise dispersion over vast areas.

  • Pump-based ice thickening would demand deploying up to a million pumps annually to cover just 10% of Arctic sea ice within a decade.

• Cost Estimates:

  • Sea curtains could cost > $1 billion per kilometer, far exceeding similar engineering projects in temperate regions.

  • Glass microsphere distribution campaigns halted due to prohibitive expenses and environmental concerns.

• Effectiveness Limits:

  • Models show SAI may delay West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse but cannot prevent it without deep emissions cuts.

  • Ocean fertilization’s net carbon removal remains highly uncertain and could disrupt marine ecosystems.

4. Environmental and Ethical Risks

• Ecosystem Disruption: Introducing pollutants or structures into fragile polar habitats risks biodiversity loss, ozone depletion, and altered weather patterns globally.

• Unintended Consequences: Local cooling efforts in the Arctic could intensify mid-latitude storm systems or shift precipitation patterns in the Global South.

• Ethical Concerns: Deploying geoengineering without comprehensive consent may violate Indigenous rights and undermine equitable governance.

5. Governance and Policy Challenges

• Legal Ambiguity: No clear international framework authorizes or regulates polar-specific geoengineering, complicating liability and transboundary impact assessment

• Stakeholder Engagement: Workshops emphasize the necessity of inclusive decision-making, ensuring Indigenous communities and diverse stakeholders guide research priorities and exit strategies.

• Risk of Complacency: High-profile geoengineering proposals may distract policymakers from achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, posing a “moral hazard” that weakens climate action

6. Scholarly Consensus and Recommendations

• A multinational assessment of over 40 polar scientists concludes none of the leading geoengineering ideas meet feasibility, environmental safety, or governance criteria for near-term implementation

• Rapid decarbonization remains the only proven strategy to stabilize polar ice, with geoengineering regarded at best as a speculative complement rather than an alternative to emissions reductions.

Conclusion: The technical barriers, exorbitant costs, ecological hazards, and governance voids render polar geoengineering an unrealistic path for safeguarding Arctic and Antarctic ice. Global efforts must prioritize aggressive emissions cuts, carbon removal through established CDR methods, and robust climate policy to preserve polar environments and broader planetary health.