The polar regions, once remote and untouched, are on the front lines of the climate crisis, facing unprecedented warming with catastrophic global consequences. The Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the global average, while Antarctica is experiencing double the rate of warming. These changes are already leading to massive loss of sea ice, melting permafrost, retreating glaciers and accelerating ice sheet loss, contributing to rising sea levels around the world. In addition, polar ecosystems are struggling with ocean acidification, which is threatening essential marine species. These areas, crucial to the global climate by reflecting sunlight and driving ocean currents, are vital carbon sinks, but their delicate balance is being drastically disrupted.

In a desperate search for “quick fixes,” some scientists and engineers are proposing geoengineering interventions that would slow or mask some of the effects of global warming, especially in the polar regions. These “climate interventions” are often presented as a complement to, or even an alternative to, emissions reductions. However, Expert review shows that none of the five prominent geoengineering concepts proposed for the polar regions have passed scrutiny and are environmentally dangerous.

These proposed solutions, such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), sea screens, sea ice management (including glass beads and ice thickening), slowing glacier flow by removing basal water, and ocean fertilization, are logistically unfeasible, financially disproportionate and ethically questionableIn addition, they would cause serious environmental damage and could have serious unforeseen consequences.

Consider, for example, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which involves releasing particles (e.g., sulfur dioxide) into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. While a massive volcanic eruption in 1991 showed a short-term global cooling of about 0.5 °C, sustaining such an effect would require injection hundreds of thousands to millions of tons of material per year, with 60,000 flights per year, which is a logistical nightmare. If SAI were to suddenly stop, it could lead to a “termination shock” – a rapid and severe warming that would unmask ongoing greenhouse gas emissions, destabilize the global climate system and cause widespread changes in the water cycle. SAI would also did not prevent ocean acidification, could damage the ozone layer and negatively affect human health by inhaling aerosols. Estimated direct costs for launch would exceed $13 billion for aircraft purchases and $1 billion per year for operations, but these figures do not include indirect costs such as monitoring, compensation for damages, or the colossal costs associated with termination shock.

Other concepts are equally problematic. Sea screens, designed to block warm waters from ice sheets, would require installations deep underwater in harsh and remote polar environments, which is extremely difficult and costly (estimated at up to $80 billion for just 80 km of structure, which is probably a significant underestimate). They should also far-reaching negative consequences for marine life and ocean circulationThe idea of sprinkling Arctic sea ice glass beads to increase its reflectivity was rejected because tests showed potential ecotoxicological risks to the Arctic food chain and paradoxically they could accelerate sea ice loss. Moreover, it would require 360 megatons per year, which is equivalent to the annual global production of plastics. Sea ice thickening pumping seawater is logistically impossible on a significant scale, it would require millions of pumps and billions of dollars a year, while it should only negligible impact on global warming.

Even more worrying is that Geoengineering does not address the main cause of climate change – greenhouse gas emissionsInstead, it represents "moral hazard" and "mitigation deterrence", because it diverts attention and resources from proven and effective emission reduction strategies. Proponents of geoengineering often underestimate the potential for accelerated mitigation and risk undermining decarbonization efforts. There is also a risk that powerful actors, including the fossil fuel industry, could "by a predatory delay" promote geoengineering to justify continued emissions and maintain their financial and political interests.

International frameworks for managing such large-scale interventions are inadequate. The consensus-based Antarctic Treaty System recently recommended "precautionary approach" and rejected geoengineering methods in Antarctica due to their unknown environmental consequences. The Arctic, mostly under national jurisdictions, also lacks a unified regulatory framework for geoengineering.

Instead of placing our hopes in speculative and dangerous geoengineering technologies that divert attention and resources, The only realistic and effective way to protect the polar regions and the entire planet is immediate, rapid and deep decarbonization to “net zero” emissions by mid-century.. This is technically, financially and politically feasible and will bring enormous benefits to human health and the habitability of the planet. We must focus on proven strategies, not on the illusions of “quick fixes” that threaten our future. JRi

The study is published in in the journal Frontiers in Science .