Plans to fight climate change by manipulating the Arctic and Antarctic environment are dangerous, unlikely to work, and could distract from the need to ditch fossil fuels, dozens of polar scientists have warned.
These polar geoengineering techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thickening sea-ice or releasing tiny, reflective particles into the atmosphere.
They have gained attention as potential future tools to combat global warming, alongside cutting carbon emissions.
But more than 40 researchers say they could bring severe environmental damage and urged countries to simply focus on reaching net zero, the only established way to limit global warming.
Geoengineering - deliberately intervening in the Earth's climate system to counter the impacts of global warming - is one of the most controversial areas of climate research.
Some types are widely accepted, such as removing planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via planting trees or using machines, which are recognized parts of net zero efforts.
Net zero means balancing the amount of planet-warming greenhouse gases produced by human activities with the amount being actively removed from the atmosphere.
But some more radical geoengineering ideas, like reflecting sunlight, are dealing with the symptoms of climate change rather than the causes, said lead author Martin Siegert, professor of geosciences at the University of Exeter.
For supporters, it is worth exploring techniques which could help rein in rapidly rising temperatures, which are already bringing severe impacts for people and ecosystems around the world.
However, for opponents, the risks are considered too great, particularly for the fragile polar regions, about which much remains unknown.
The scientists behind the new assessment, published in the journal Frontiers in Science, reviewed the evidence for five of the most discussed polar geoengineering ideas, all of which they claim fail to meet basic criteria for feasibility and potential environmental risks.
Concerns include disruption to global weather patterns and potential geopolitical tensions if one nation decides to deploy such technologies against the wishes of others.
These proposed solutions could create an illusion of a feasible alternative to cutting emissions, which would be damaging to genuine efforts to combat climate change.
In conclusion, researchers argue that the focus should remain firmly on drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions rather than unproven geoengineering techniques.
