wGlacier researcher John Moore began exploring the Arctic Circle in the 1980s. The continuous warming of this area has led to the disappearance of many glaciers, as noted in The Arctic heats 4 times faster. They have simply melted away, outpacing global averages.

Four decades later, Moore’s research network identified an Arctic university. 61 Potential Interventions aim to slow, halt, and reverse the impacts of regional climate change. These concepts are regularly updated. Some will be discussed at a meeting in Cambridge this week, where scientists and engineers will explore whether radical technical solutions can buy time and mitigate the loss of polar ice caps.

“We aim to distill them down to about 10 concrete ideas,” Moore asserts, although he hasn’t yet shared specific developments. He emphasizes that the study should exclude “non-starters and hopeless ideas.” If no action is taken over the next 30 years, it may indeed be too late.

The focus should be on rationally valuing these interventions; otherwise, they are merely speculation.

These include methods such as Solar Radiation Management (SRM), brightening Arctic clouds to stabilize ice sheets, giant underwater curtains to prevent warm water from melting glaciers, and deploying vast mirrors in space. Ideas once considered science fiction are becoming more mainstream.

“None of these ideas will solve every issue,” Moore states, emphasizing the need to weigh potential costs against perceived benefits.

Dr. Sean Fitzgerald, director of the Climate Restoration Center at Cambridge University, which is hosting the conference, reflects on a 30-year journey of “unpaid progress” that has slowed the climate crisis, shifting focus towards preserving the Arctic.

“I felt obligated to expand knowledge into broader fields,” he notes. Among the more unusual ideas discussed is the concept of a 10km sunshade suspended between airships the size of Zeppelins and creating corridors for fixed rafts to assist Arctic wildlife reliant on ice. Other measures, such as the initiative by British startup Real Ice and a Dutch company, are underway, which involve pumping water onto ice to refreeze it.

Critics voice concerns about the ethical and legal implications of many proposed interventions, making geoengineering a contentious topic. For instance, in 2021, the Sami Council, representing the Saami people in Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia, voiced opposition against Harvard-led pilot projects that aimed to test stratospheric aerosol injection (Science), which simulates volcanic eruptions by dispersing aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. The Sami Council branded the plan as a “real moral hazard.”

With these sensitivities in mind, the Cambridge Conference will address ethics, governance, sustainability, and general engagement.

The interventions have undergone extensive study, including those identified by Moore for mitigating the Arctic climate emergency. However, many proposals are unlikely to go beyond theoretical stages and require substantial funding or large-scale implementation.

Thus far, ocean-based concepts present additional uncertainties, limitations, and risks, and the study has deemed them “unsuitable for further consideration,” scoring very low against most evaluation criteria.

One such idea, modifying ocean currents, was first proposed during the Cold War, when suggestions were made to block the Bering Strait to enhance Arctic livability. Years later, climate activist Rolf Schttenhelm proposed a similar initiative aimed at increasing Arctic sea ice.

“It’s very easy to make mistakes, and no one knows the definitive answer,” Moore reflects. “Local benefits must be balanced with the hope for global gains.”

Fitzgerald remains cautious about any solutions he considers to be frontrunners, underscoring the importance of keeping an open mind and exploring a variety of approaches.

Meanwhile, SAI and Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) are drawing significant interest. Professor Peter Wadham, leader of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, describes MCB as a “very powerful” option. “It’s advantageous because it can be implemented on a small scale, allowing for cessation of activities if negative impacts arise,” he asserts.

Wadham is less enthusiastic about SAI, labeling it a risky long-term strategy compared to MCB. Additionally, he finds the proposal to thicken sea ice unrealistic due to the sheer energy required. “It could work in limited scenarios,” he notes, “but not at an impactful scale. Marine Cloud Brightening stands out as the best and most thoughtfully designed approach.”

Earlier this year, UK scientists announced plans for outdoor geoengineering trials, including Marine Cloud Brightening, funded by a £50 million government initiative. However, opposition has emerged from various sectors; a discussion was held in the UK Parliament this week, and the state of Tennessee has passed legislation banning geoengineering in the US.

In critique claiming that potential disasters outweigh the benefits, Fitzgerald advises: “The risks of attempting action should be assessed alongside those of inaction. Given the rapid pace of climate change, our research efforts must accelerate.”

He adds, “If we believe current conditions are dire, we must consider what the next century may hold.”