A ‘dangerous distraction’: How experimental climate change proposals could impact Mass.

Two University of Massachusetts Amherst professors joined a group of 42 climate scientists worldwide arguing that recent proposals to combat climate change are a “dangerous distraction” riddled with unintended negative consequences.

The collection of proposals are known as geoengineering projects. Geoengineering focuses on technical physical interventions in the atmosphere, oceans, ice sheets and other areas.

Some geoengineering projects have broad support, such as planting more trees, while others have received much more pushback.

More controversial proposals — highlighted in a journal article published Tuesday by the 42 scientists — include blocking sunlight with airborne particles, inserting underwater curtains to prevent warm deep water from melting the ice shelves, artificially thickening ice or scattering glass microbeads on remaining ice to help with reflectivity.

The paper, co-authored by the UMass professors, was published in the journal Frontiers of Science. The geoengineering proposals analyzed by the scientists were based upon their effectiveness, feasibility, negative consequences, cost and governance.

Geoengineering projects have been presented at conferences and funded in some countries. For instance, the United Kingdom government funded geoengineering projects in the Arctic and the Great Barrier Reef, according to The Guardian.

In some cases, geoengineering projects have been created without the input of or oversight of the local city where the experiment is taking place, causing backlash, according to a recent Science article.

While there aren’t any local geoengineering projects in Massachusetts that the two UMass professors know of, both professors believe that some of the proposed projects will impact the state — and the world.

“The polar geoengineering proposals evaluated in our article could result in global impacts — including right here in Massachusetts. That’s why the stakes are so high,” said Robert DeConto, provost professor of earth, geographic and climate sciences.

DeConto pointed to the proposal of engineering the Antarctic ice sheet to reduce ice loss from melting glaciers and sea level rise, stating that it would leave a “huge human footprint on Antarctica.”

“Trying to engineer the Antarctic ice sheet, which is on average more than a mile thick and bigger in scale than the continental U.S., might seem like a good investment for Massachusetts. But the untested concepts being proposed simply don’t appear feasible at the required scales given existing technologies or resources. The outcomes might even increase the rate of sea level rise in the long term,” DeConto, who is also the director of the UMass School of Earth and Sustainability, said in a statement.

Other geoengineering projects may also have unintended consequences. For instance, reducing solar radiation by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere would dim sunlight, impacting Massachusetts solar power generation and agriculture, he said.

“In my view, there is still way too much uncertainty in how the effects would ultimately play out for different places around the world,” DeConto said.

Julie Brigham-Grette, professor of Earth, Geographic and Climate Sciences, said recently funded geoengineering projects don’t have the proper “international [or] political guard rails.”

“The projects proposed, like stratospheric injections, sea walls in front of melting glaciers, thickening sea ice in the Arctic are all expensive delay tactics to the extremely urgent need to transition to clean energy. Countries like Russia hate the idea that their riches of oil and gas would be worthless in a clean energy economy,” she said in a statement.

Instead of geoengineering projects, the UMass professors argue that rapid decarbonization is necessary by reducing our emissions, such as through the promotion of solar and wind energy.

“We have proven technologies to help us get there, and that’s where I wish 100% of our attention was focused. In my view, these geoengineering ideas are a dangerous distraction and not a climate panacea,” DeConto said.