As the world’s glaciers continue to shrink and polar ice melts at a record pace, a new wave of ambitious technological proposals—ranging from giant underwater “sea curtains” to scattering reflective glass beads across the Arctic—has captured headlines and imaginations alike. Yet, according to a sweeping new study published in Frontiers in Science on September 9, 2025, none of these much-hyped geoengineering schemes are viable, safe, or economically justifiable. The verdict, delivered by a team of 46 polar scientists from across six continents, is clear: these interventions are not only prohibitively expensive but could also inflict irreversible ecological harm while distracting from the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
On July 11, 2024, rivulets of meltwater were spotted winding their way across the Isunnguata Sermia glacier in Greenland—an image that has become emblematic of the climate crisis. The threat is real: the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could drive catastrophic sea level rise, threatening coastal communities worldwide. With global temperatures now regularly exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the stakes have never been higher. This sense of urgency has fueled a surge in interest—and investment—in so-called “polar geoengineering” solutions, which promise to artificially cool the Arctic and Antarctic and stave off further ice loss.
But is this technological optimism warranted? According to the new analysis, the answer is a resounding no. The study assessed five of the most popular geoengineering ideas: spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, building underwater barriers to block warm ocean currents, scattering glass microgranules on sea ice to boost reflectivity, removing subglacial water to slow ice flow, and fertilizing the ocean with iron to stimulate carbon-absorbing algae. Each proposal was evaluated for effectiveness, feasibility, environmental risks, costs, governance challenges, and scalability. The result: not a single one passed muster.
Take stratospheric aerosol injection, for example. The concept involves sending aircraft on 60,000 flights annually to disperse particles into the upper atmosphere, mimicking the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions. Yet, as reported by CNN, the study found this approach would be “completely ineffective during polar winter months when there’s no sunlight to block.” The costs would soar into the billions, and the risks—including the potential for “termination shock,” or rapid severe warming if the intervention were halted—are daunting.
Other ideas fare no better. Underwater “sea veils” or curtains, designed to block warm water from reaching vulnerable glaciers, could cost up to $80 billion for an 80-kilometer barrier over a decade. The logistical hurdles are immense: more than half of research cruises to target regions have faced disruption or outright failure due to sea ice, making construction and maintenance a near-impossible task. Meanwhile, scattering hundreds of millions of tons of glass beads across the Arctic each year—another widely discussed proposal—was recently abandoned by the Arctic Ice Project after eco-toxicological tests revealed “potential risks to the Arctic food web.”
The environmental uncertainties don’t end there. Sea veils could disrupt the habitats of marine mammals, particularly seals and whales. Drilling holes under ice to remove subglacial water risks polluting some of the planet’s most pristine environments. Dispersing particles into the stratosphere could alter global climate patterns in unpredictable ways. As the study’s authors warn, “none of the five ideas passed the test, and all of them would potentially be ecologically dangerous.”
Governance and political realities present further obstacles. Any intervention in Antarctica would require consensus under the Antarctic Treaty System, which has never authorized projects at such a scale. At the most recent treaty meeting, the Committee for Environmental Protection advised a “precautionary approach,” recommending that geoengineering methods “should not be conducted due to their unknown environmental consequences.” The Arctic, meanwhile, is governed by the interests of eight nations—many with competing priorities and geopolitical tensions. Indigenous communities, whose livelihoods depend on fragile polar ecosystems, have voiced strong opposition to large-scale engineering projects.
The financial calculus is equally sobering. Beyond the eye-watering initial costs—at least $10 billion for even the smallest interventions—most proposals would require ongoing maintenance for decades or even centuries. The study warns that these calculations do not account for potential lawsuits, insurance, or compensation for unintended cross-border impacts. Unlike proven solutions such as renewable energy, none of the geoengineering schemes have established supply chains or operational experience at scale.
Some scientists, while supporting the urgent need for emissions reductions, caution against a complete halt to geoengineering research. As Peter Irvine put it, the report is “a one-sided analysis of polar geoengineering proposals that focuses only on side effects, downsides, and the potential for abuse.” Hugh Hunt added, “It is critical and urgent, especially in Arctic regions, where the impacts are most noticeable.” Still, the overwhelming consensus is that these interventions are, at best, a dangerous distraction. Bethan Davis emphasized, “In principle, the work clearly and forward-looking shows that these polar geoengineering interventions are a dangerous distraction from reducing carbon emissions and do not offer a realistic or economically justifiable solution.” Tina van de Flierdt, drawing on her experience in Antarctic fieldwork, stated, “All proposed methods are either scientifically flawed, or not proven, or dangerous, or logistically impossible.” Siegert summed up the stakes: “Polar regions are delicate, pristine systems, and once they are disturbed and destroyed, they will be destroyed forever.”
The study also highlights a troubling pattern: fossil fuel companies have funded geoengineering research while continuing to expand oil and gas production—a tactic reminiscent of tobacco companies promoting filtered cigarettes as a safer alternative to quitting. The research team’s message is unequivocal: “They distract from what we know needs to be done… namely reducing emissions.”
Modeling cited in the paper shows that with ambitious decarbonization, the Antarctic’s contribution to sea level rise by 2070 could be limited to just 6 cm, compared to 27 cm under high emissions. Current climate policies, if fully implemented, offer a one-in-five chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C; strengthening these policies boosts the odds of staying below 2°C to four-in-five. The authors advocate for expanding protected areas in polar regions and accelerating the clean energy transition, which address the root causes of ice loss without the potentially catastrophic side effects of planetary-scale engineering.
Meanwhile, the world’s largest iceberg, A23a, is rapidly breaking into fragments—a stark reminder of the dramatic changes underway in Antarctica due to warming oceans and shifting currents. New research also warns that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could be on the brink of collapse, underscoring the urgent need for rapid fossil fuel emission cuts to prevent severe climate impacts.
At a time when technological “fixes” are tempting, the overwhelming evidence points in a different direction: invest in proven solutions, not expensive gambles. The fate of the polar regions—and the planet—depends on it.
