By launching microscopic particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to block sunlight, scientists have suggested refreezing the North and South poles. They assert that this is a “possible and incredibly affordable” way to lessen some of the effects of the climate issue, albeit acknowledging that there are potential risks.

The objective, according to a recent study, is to use a fleet of 125 high-altitude military aircraft to spray aerosol particles into the stratosphere in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

If injected at a height of 13,106 meters (43,000 feet) at a latitude roughly equivalent to Anchorage in southern Alaska and the southern point of Patagonia, the particles would float toward the poles and protect the region below from sunlight.

Less solar energy means less heat. According to the researchers, if this is done correctly, the polar regions’ temperatures might drop by 2°C (3.6°F), or almost to their pre-industrial levels. Thus, a decrease in global temperatures would be promoted.

Although this could be a game-changer in a rapidly warming world, injections of stratospheric aerosols only alleviate the symptoms of climate change at the surface level. Aspirin, not penicillin. Wake Smith, a geoengineering expert from Yale University and the study’s lead author, stated in a statement that it cannot take the place of decarbonization.

Smith said that any intentional change to the global thermostat will affect all of humanity, not just the states of the Arctic and the Patagonian.

According to the team’s calculations, this approach would only cost $11 billion year, which is a very tiny quantity of money when compared to what climate change is predicted to cost the globe.

Arctic amplification, also known as polar amplification, is a phenomena that is causing the Arctic to warm more quickly than any other region of our world. But that’s not the main reason this strategy specifically targets the polar areas. Because it is sparsely inhabited, the researchers chose this area of the planet because relatively few people would be affected if something went wrong.

According to Smith, “there is widespread and understandable anxiety about using aerosols to cool the globe,” but the poles would be the place where the risk/benefit ratio would be most favorable.

You’re not alone if you think the concept of blotting out the Sun belongs to humorously terrible villains. Early in 2022, a number of scientists and academics of governance signed a statement calling for a prohibition on technology that aims to lessen the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth. They contend that while the seductive nature of this sort of approach is being increased by the worsening climate problem, it may also have unanticipated global repercussions.

The signatories stated in their statement that “the hazards of solar geoengineering are poorly understood and can never be completely known.” There are concerns regarding the consequences on weather patterns, agriculture, and the availability of necessities like food and water, and impacts will differ among places.

They said, “The hypothetical prospect of solar geoengineering in the future risks providing a potent justification for corporate lobbyists, climate deniers, and certain governments to postpone decarbonization programs.”