Refreezing Arctic Poles to Avoid a Global Meltdown: Pros and Cons

From saving polar bears to sea levels rising, the subject of polar ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic melting has been a topic of discussion in both scientific circles and the news alike. A scientific study published in Environmental Research Communications- by researchers from Cornell University- has devised a  plan to refreeze the poles in an attempt to combat the anthropogenic consequences of climate change.  This approach, though seemingly straight out of a science fiction novel, could prevent the desolation of the arctic poles. Like all climate mitigation proposals, there are environmental and social impact assessments that help us understand both the short and long-term sustainability prospects and the potential consequences of new technologies for combating climate change.

You might be wondering: how do you refreeze the whole North Pole? Researchers from Cornell propose to refreeze the poles using a method called Stratospheric aerosol injection, SAI, which would lower the amount of direct sunlight that hits the poles by spraying “microscopic aerosol particles” from jets at an altitude of 43,000 feet. 

For this approach to work and cool the poles by approximately two degrees Celcius annually-pre-industrial revolution temperatures- the jets must spray these aerosols at the latitudes of 60 degrees North and South or roughly the location of Anchorage, Alaska (for effectiveness on the North pole), and Patagonia (for effectiveness on the South Pole). The sprayed aerosols will float toward the poles and essentially create a large cloud. This cloud, due to the predetermined location of where the researchers will launch the aerosols, will float toward the poles and create a shadow beneath. 

The shadow is supposed to act as a shield for the poles by lessening the impact of direct sunlight on the land below. In other words, these jets are essentially spraying aerosols to act like a large umbrella to block the sun from having an extremely adverse effect on the polar ice caps below.

"There is widespread and sensible trepidation about deploying aerosols to cool the planet," notes the lead author of the research Wake Smith, "but if the risk/benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles."

There is global apprehension to release aerosols into the atmosphere. This largely stems from the implications of the aerosol CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) that were found by scientists in the 1970s to have been accumulating in the atmosphere and causing detrimental effects on the Ozone layer. As a result, CFCs were banned by the United States in 1978 (Clean Air Act)- as well as in Canada, Norway and Sweden. Then, in 1987, the Montreal Protocol- which began the phasing out of CFCs- was ratified in the European Union, all countries represented in the United Nations, Palestine, the Cook Islands, and the Vatican. 

The aerosols that are projected to be used in the SAI plan is Sulfur Dioxide. When Sulfur dioxide is released into the stratosphere, it has a chemical reaction with the Oxygen and water vapor already present in the air and forms Sulfuric Acid. After one month in the stratosphere, sulfuric acid condenses to form aerosols, and these aerosols can negatively affect the ozone layer. 

In addition, There is little to no research on the effects of prolonged exposure to sulfuric acid injected into the atmosphere, and it can be assumed that regions closest to the poles could suffer the greatest impact. As a result, the research cannot claim to be environmentally neutral because significant evidence is lacking. Therefore, this plan is not chemically suited to be considered “environmentally friendly”.

This scientific proposal largely relies on a fleet of nearly 125 pre-existing military “air-to-air refueling tankers”. This prevents the need to fund the building of new military technology to accomplish the task of SAI. The total cost for this operation would be around $11 billion USD a year, and it would take global approval and support to continue the program- if it were to be instituted. 

The potential environmental implications of refreezing the poles would exceed the environmental benefits, however, this research is imperative and a positive step in the right direction to lower the effects of a warming planet on a global scale. Projects like SAI are examples of innovative thinking, but their solutions can potentially cause more environmental harm than good. Nevertheless, it is a starting point and scientists like Smith are essential to upholding empirical research and crossing off what works and what doesn’t.

"Game-changing though this could be in a rapidly warming world, stratospheric aerosol injections merely treat a symptom of climate change but not the underlying disease. It's aspirin, not penicillin. It's not a substitute for decarbonization," said Smith.  

We can expect many more bandage attempts to come along as we work together to find sustainable solutions to a warming planet. What’s important, however, is that the work has begun.