News Reaction
Scientists Divided Over Polar Geoengineering Study
A recent study reviewed several polar geoengineering approaches, including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). It concluded that all approaches would be ineffective and dangerous, and recommended against any further research – conclusions that were contested by other experts in the field.
Photo: Xuanyu Han
On 9 September, Frontiers in Science published an article co-authored by 42 scientists: “Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering”, which was widely covered in the media. It reviewed five geoengineering approaches, including SAI, in terms of their feasibility, cost, governance, effectiveness, and negative consequences.
Their findings relating to SAI highlight the lack of international governance frameworks, environmental side effects like ozone depletion, and the potential for a “termination shock” – a rapid rise in temperatures if SAI were to stop suddenly. The article also takes on common arguments for advancing geoengineering, including that “mitigation is not happening fast enough” and that geoengineering could “buy us time”.
Their broader conclusions are that the reviewed approaches are “not feasible” and would be “environmentally dangerous”. They state, “further research into these techniques would not be an effective use of limited time and resources” and argue that they distract from the proven approach of emissions cuts.
In response, some researchers criticised the framing, scientific claims, and conclusions of the analysis, including Dr Pete Irvine in an SRM360 Perspective and Prof. John Moore in a Viewpoint article accompanying the original study.
An open letter from 88 scientists was also published, arguing responsible research into these proposals is “part of building a toolkit” for managing climate risks. It expresses the concern that the article may give readers “the false impression that there is scientific consensus that research is unwise or distracting”.
We asked experts for their reaction to this divisive article.
John Moore
Research Professor
University of Lapland
Arguing to shut down an entire field of scientific research is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. Pointing to specific problems in individual techniques, as the authors do, is not sufficient. Further research may resolve those problems. The only potentially valid argument against all interventions research is political: that it might reduce motivation to decarbonize. But even setting aside the ethical concern of suppressing science for political reasons, this argument is unproven. It rests entirely on the belief that warning the public will generate political action. It is fair to say that this approach has, after half a century, failed to deliver. Perhaps, rather than relying on warnings alone, it is time that we try compassionate harm reduction instead.
Read the full article by John Moore, Marc Macias-Fauria, and Michael Wolovick: A new paradigm from the Arctic
John Moore leads the University of the Arctic Thematic Network on Frozen Arctic Conservation. He is also a Research Professor at Arctic Centre, University of Lapland in Finland and Member of Finnish Academy of Science and Letters. He is a glaciologist, working mainly on ice sheet dynamics and sea level rise, but began his career on ice cores and paleoclimate.
Mike Hulme
Professor of Human Geography
University of Cambridge
The proponents of large-scale climatic engineering – whether regional (polar) or global – mis-read both the nature and the scale of the political challenge involved in implementation. They therefore offer a false promise of what scientific research into these technologies can resolve. Neither scientific nor social scientific research will reconcile the competing cultural values, ethical judgements, and political interests at stake in large-scale climate engineering. The decision about whether or not to deploy (or research) such schemes are political through and through. And political decisions are not resolved by undertaking more scientific research.
Although Siegert’s review doesn’t revisit “the checkered history of weather and climate control” (to quote historian, Jim Fleming), history matters. A historical sensibility helps understand why the human imagination of what could be done vastly exceeds humanity’s technical, ethical and political ability to safely govern climate intervention technologies at scale. History also shows that the risk of things going wrong is large, but in the end unquantifiable.
It is not scientific evidence – always incomplete and contested – that lies at the heart of the governance dilemma for climate intervention technologies. It is ethical and value judgements about risk, safety, technical ability and political stability. The nations and peoples of the world do not have a good historical track record in safely navigating the mistrust and rivalry between nations.
Read the full article by Mike Hulme: The false promises of polar geoengineering (research)
Mike Hulme is the author of 12 books on climate change including “Climate Change Isn’t Everything: Liberating Climate Politics from Alarmism” (Polity, 2023) and “Can Science Fix Climate Change? A Case Against Climate Engineering” (Polity, 2014). He was the Founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK.
Ellen Haaslahti
Acting Executive Director
Operaatio Arktis
Assessments of climate interventions, or geoengineering, are much needed, and we welcome critical contributions. A recent article by Siegert et al. brings forth many real flaws and concerns of some interventions, and in our perspective, Operaatio Arktis have a shared mission to preserve polar regions, and mitigate global warming. However, contextualization and framing matter, and they come with great responsibility when experts are talking about the climate crisis. In our view, this study unfortunately distorts intervention discourse with cheap rhetoric and argumentative flaws.
Continued, transparent, and inclusive research on different climate interventions is in line with the precautionary principle, and remains crucial to give people agency to take part in decision-making in a meaningful way. We need to understand different approaches better and doing this research now will allow us to make informed decisions in the future. It is not the time to stop research, but to learn what can be done to mitigate the damage that has already been locked in for young people and other climate vulnerable groups for example in the Arctic area.
We encourage everyone to engage with the current reality as uncomfortable as it is. Weaponizing uncertainty and undermining research is not the way if we wish to come together to respond to the growing threat of global warming.
Read Operaatio Arktis’ full response: Dear polar scientists, engage with climate reality
Ellen Haaslahti is the Acting Executive Director for Operaatio Arktis, a state award-winning climate strategy agency working between science and policy to implement comprehensive risk management for Earth system tipping points, including climate intervention research. With roots in the environmental movement, Ellen holds a master’s degree in social science.
Bethan Davies
Chair in Glaciology
Newcastle University
Geoengineering has received increased attention in recent years, as it sadly looks increasingly likely that it will be very difficult to meet the net zero goals by 2050, needed to keep global warming below the levels identified in the Paris agreement. Much of this geoengineering work has lacked adequate and thorough scrutiny from polar scientists and geopolitical experts, which as a community has been slow to respond to these.
This therefore is a very welcome perspective paper that carefully explores the scope of implementation, effectiveness, feasibility, negative consequences, cost and governance. Fundamentally, the paper shows clearly and farsightedly that these polar geoengineering interventions are a dangerous distraction from reducing carbon emissions and do not pose a realistic or cost-effective solution.
The manuscript is thorough – it reviews well the existing shape of the literature. Til now, this has largely been fairly one sided, with most of the scholarly debate focused around those who support or conceptualise these interventions. The answering debate is long overdue. It highlights clearly how not only do these interventions pose highly significant political, cost and governance challenges, but there are also significant concerns about technological viability and effectiveness, i.e. whether they would actually work.
Bethan Davies is an award-winning glaciologist specialising in reconstructing glacier dynamics. She is interested in how glaciers across the world are responding to climate change, and how this will affect sea level rise and water resources.
Shaun Fitzgerald
Director
Centre for Climate Repair
The paper correctly highlights the need for emissions reduction. And whilst we have been saying this for a long time, it is right to keep saying it.
The authors say, “some scientists and engineers claim that a mid-century decarbonization target will not be reached…”. This is true, but it isn’t just “some scientists and engineers” who are concerned about the ramifications of this – it is in line with the findings of the IPCC. The IPCC says, “global warming is expected to surpass 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, even if pledges are supplemented with very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of mitigation after 2030 (high confidence)”.
The key question is how we should respond to these concerns. The authors say, “geoengineering in sensitive polar regions would cause severe environmental damage and comes with the possibility of grave unforeseen consequences”. Unfortunately, we are faced with severe environmental damage without geoengineering. So, rather than saying we should not look further into geoengineering, we should instead be seeking a debate about the relative risks of either trying to learn more about our options of geoengineering or preserving a paucity of knowledge and watching the environmental damage unfold before our eyes whilst we decarbonise the world.
As Director of the Centre for Climate Repair at the University of Cambridge, Dr Fitzgerald coordinates research efforts into solutions that could help repair the climate, including refreezing sea ice, injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, and brightening marine clouds.
Craig Segall
Former Deputy Executive Officer (opinions his own)
California Air Resources Board
Anyone watching the United States knows that we cannot just hope for steady mitigation policy to address the climate crisis. We need to think more broadly about climate risk management, including potential interventions. The opinions in a recent Frontiers in Science paper called for an end to inquiry, but the poles and the planet need more planning to explore protective options.
Accelerating climate disruption and whip-sawing policies mean societies need more research-informed options, ASAP – along with everything we can do to get mitigation policy back on track. That includes making sure policymakers can intelligently and democratically weigh climate intervention choices relative to climate overshoot risk.
Each of the ideas discussed in the paper have real uncertainties and risks that demand scrutiny. But the choice isn’t “deploy now or never.” It’s “research now so we can make informed choices later.” Halting inquiry only guarantees that decisions down the line will be made hastily, without the evidence or governance frameworks needed to separate harmful concepts from promising ones.
Responsible, transparent research is not a distraction from mitigation and adaptation. It is part of a complete climate risk-management toolkit – and the only way to ensure that these ideas are considered with eyes wide open.
Craig Segall, a senior environmental policy consultant, is the former Deputy Executive Officer and Assistant Chief Counsel of the California Air Resources Board and a former Senior Vice President of Evergreen Action, a US environmental NGO. Earlier in his career, he was an attorney for Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. He is also an Honorary Fellow at the University of Edinburgh Law School. His views are, of course, entirely his own.
The views expressed by Perspective writers and News Reaction contributors are their own and are not necessarily endorsed by SRM360. We aim to present ideas from diverse viewpoints in these pieces to further support informed discussion of SRM (solar geoengineering).
