Science Snippets: Will Technology Save Polar Ice?

Draft script:

I have mentioned many times in this space the importance of preserving Arctic ice. The Arctic has been referred to as this planet’s air conditioner. Recently, I have mentioned Antarctic ice, too, as important to retaining a relatively cool planet on which we can survive.

From CNN on 9 September 2025 comes an article titled Re-freezing the Arctic? A giant sea curtain? High-tech efforts to save the ice sheets are doomed, report finds. The lede, followed by another sentence to complete the first paragraph, includes mentioned of a peer-reviewed paper: “Moonshot proposals to save the planet’s ice sheets, including giant underwater sea curtains and refreezing Arctic ice, are gaining popularity as the planet heats up. But none of the most high-profile ideas are viable — worse, they may cause irreparable harm, according to a new study ...”

Earth is amid the most abrupt event in planetary history. This climate change-induced event is irreversible. Vertebrates and mammals are seriously threatened by this event. I doubt whatever “irreparable harm” is caused by these “moonshot proposals to save the planet’s ice sheets” is worse than the extinction of all life on Earth.

The article at CNN continues with three paragraphs indicating the terrible direction we are headed: “The melting of the vast polar ice sheets has become a byword for climate change; these giant frozen landscapes hold enough water to cause catastrophic sea level rise and are experiencing alarming changes as temperatures increase.

Ideas to artificially cool the Arctic and Antarctic, known as ‘polar geoengineering,’ are gaining profile as a result. Academics have launched research projects, start-ups are proliferating and investors are piling in.

Geoengineering advocates say the urgency of the climate crisis makes it vital to research these potential fixes. The authors of the report, published in the journal Frontiers in Science, say they are a dangerous distraction.”

The article in CNN echoes the peer-reviewed paper in listing five well-known ideas for geoengineering Earth:

(1) Pumping seawater onto ice to artificially thicken it or scattering glass beads to make sea ice more reflective;

(2) anchoring giant curtains to the seabed to prevent warm water melting ice shelves;

(3) spraying sun-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, also called solar geoengineering, to cool the planet;

(4) drilling down to pump water from beneath glaciers to slow ice sheet flow; and

(5) adding nutrients like iron to polar oceans to stimulate carbon-sucking plankton.

The peer-reviewed study addressed each of these five ideas for effectiveness, feasibility, risks, financial costs, governance issues, and the ability to scale. The article at CNN quotes the peer-reviewed paper in concluding that none of these five ideas “pass scrutiny” and all “would be environmentally dangerous.”

The bottom line from CNN includes quotes from two individuals. The head of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London said: “As somebody who has conducted challenging fieldwork in the Antarctic, I want to emphasize that all suggested methods are either scientifically flawed, unproven, dangerous or logistically unfeasible.”

The second quote comes from a co-author of the study and glaciologist at the University of Exeter: “the polar regions are fragile, pristine systems and once they’re disturbed and ruined, they are ruined forever.” Remember, this is from a co-author of the peer-reviewed paper.

The peer-reviewed, open-access paper was published by Frontiers in Science on 8 September 2025. Created by 42 scholars, it is titled Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering: a critical assessment of proposed concepts and future prospects.

The Abstract is detailed: “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 … 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 … emissions or from the critical need to conduct fundamental research in the polar regions.”

Next, the peer-reviewed paper includes six bullet points in a subsection titled “Key points”:

· “Five geoengineering concepts proposed for the polar regions fail to meet the essential criteria required for them to be considered responsible approaches toward limiting the escalation of climate-related risks. These criteria include feasibility and likelihood of success.

· Geoengineering in sensitive polar regions would cause severe environmental damage and comes with the possibility of grave unforeseen consequences.

· Polar regions have complex environmental protection and governance frameworks that would probably reject polar geoengineering fieldwork and large-scale projects.

· Polar geoengineering would require hundreds of billions of dollars in initial costs, plus decades of ongoing maintenance, both of which are presently unavailable and highly unlikely to be secured over necessarily short timescales to address climate change.

· Geoengineering could be used by bad actors as a strategy to create the illusion of a climate solution without committing to decarbonization.

· Minimizing risk and damage from climate change is best achieved by mitigating its causes through immediate, rapid, and deep decarbonization, rather than attempting interventions in fragile polar ecosystems.”

At this point, it should be clear why I refer to abrupt, irreversible climate change as a predicament, not a problem. There is simply no way to solve this issue. Our collective actions are driving a rapid melt of ice at both poles. Civilization is a heat engine driving the warming of Earth. Continuing Industrial Civilization is a prescription for disaster. Stopping Industrial Civilization is even worse, as it invokes the aerosol masking effect.