A critical lens on geoengineering in Inuit Homelands

The rights, leadership, and knowledge of Inuit Peoples must be foundational to geoengineering and other climate policies affecting their Homelands, ensuring meaningful participation and avoiding unfair burdens, emphasizes Sophie Crump, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Greenland.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25453/plabs.30052270

Published on September 24th, 2025

Inuit Homelands: a place of increasing focus for geoengineering

Inuit have an interconnected and inter-reliant relationship with the land, waters, and ice across their homelands which include Kalaallit Nunaat/ Greenland, Canada, Alaska (United States), and Chukotka (Russia). Drastic changes in the Arctic place Inuit on the frontlines of climate change. Thawing permafrost and eroding coastlines undermine built infrastructure and entire Inuit communities face relocation. Increasingly unpredictable freeze-melt patterns of sea ice threaten Inuit food security and sovereignty. Wildland and forest fires, as well as rain-on-snow events are reshaping the landscape and affecting the health of animals, the land, and consequently Inuit themselves. While the impacts of climate change are felt globally, the urgency to act and adapt is not new to Inuit, who have been raising the alarm about climate change for decades.

The oceans, sea ice, and glaciers across Inuit homelands are sites of increasing interest for proposed climate intervention and geoengineering projects. These waters and ice are central to a healthy ecosystems, Inuit food sovereignty and traditional economies, and they support transportation and connectivity for Inuit, while also contributing to global weather and climate systems (1). In pursuit of solutions to climate change, some geoengineering experiments have already been funded and carried out in Inuit homelands, while others remain in scoping or conceptual stages. The Arctic Ice Project (formerly Ice911) faced strong vocal opposition from Alaska Native groups and environmental NGOs for solar radiation management (SRM) experiments conducted on a lake near Utqiaġvik, Alaska in 2017, and ceased operations in 2025 (2) (3). Although the Greenland Ice Sheet Conservation (GRISCO) project made some efforts to engage Inuit in Ilulissat, Greenland, a more formal approach is required to uphold the rights of Inuit. In 2025 researchers determined that this seabed curtain experiment was not feasible in Sermeq Kujalleq (4). The Real Ice Project has been conducting sea-ice thickening experiments since 2024 in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. This project has engaged directly with Inuit in the community and received support from the Ekaluktutiak Hunters and Trappers Organization, as required by Nunavut research permitting processes (5). Engagement with Inuit through brief advisory meetings, employment as field assistants, or open town halls does not, however, fully address the obligations of these projects to Inuit as rightsholders.

The policy issue

How can evaluation of geoengineering proposals in the Arctic reflect its unique context and adopt a holistic lens, particularly in upholding the collective and individual rights of Indigenous Peoples? The Arctic is not only the site of several key tipping points expected to have global impacts; it is also home to Indigenous Peoples and other Arctic communities. Evaluations such as those carried out by Siegert et al. in their Frontiers in Science lead article (2025) focus on feasibility, potential ecosystem impacts, costs, and national or international governance. While these are important points, a broader rights-based lens is required. Where geoengineering governance guidelines exist, they often say little about the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the right to self-determination as a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other rights, such as to participate fully and effectively in governing geoengineering experiments in their homelands, and the right to provide or withhold free, prior, and informed consent for such projects.

Centering the rights of Indigenous Peoples

While the presence of Arctic Indigenous Peoples is often considered in evaluations of feasibility and desirability, many projects fail to adequately or explicitly address their rights.

It is not only ethically appropriate for Arctic Indigenous Peoples to be engaged in geoengineering research and governance in the Arctic; it is the fulfillment of an inherent right. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) affirms the right of self-determination and articulates the rights of Indigenous Peoples “to participate in decision making in matters which would affect their rights” and to “own, use, control, and develop” their traditional lands and territories (6).

These rights imply the full and effective participation of Inuit in decision-making regarding geoengineering projects. Inuit must be involved in the conceptualization, research, development, assessment, and implementation of geoengineering projects carried out in or affecting on Inuit homelands. The obligation of states to obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from Indigenous Peoples is enshrined in the Declaration. That obligation also extends to researchers and other practitioners of geoengineering.

The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) does not presently have a formal position on geoengineering, but such projects fall under its general position that all rights of Indigenous Peoples must be upheld, especially the right to self-determination. The Circumpolar Inuit Protocols on Ethical and Equitable Engagement provide an essential framework for geoengineering in Inuit homelands. These protocols establish the minimum standard for engaging with Inuit and Indigenous Knowledge in research, policy development, and governance. However, they do not supersede specific requirements and regulations Inuit have established at regional or local scales. The protocols call on researchers to engage meaningfully with Inuit, recognize Indigenous Knowledge as a knowledge system in its own right, and allocate funding directly to Inuit for Inuit-led and Inuit-prioritized research (7). The funding protocol is particularly relevant to geoengineering, as private, philanthropic, and state-sponsored funds are increasingly being directed toward such experiments.

Strengthened by Indigenous Knowledge

Indigenous Knowledge must be recognized as a knowledge system in its own right and must inform geoengineering research, including its conceptualization, development and evaluation. Inuit do not separate themselves from the environment, nor do they separate one part of the natural system from another. Addressing climate change as an isolated challenge runs counter to Inuit worldviews. Actions to address climate change must consider impacts on entire ecosystems and, even more importantly, on community, language, human and environmental health, and the traditional economies of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Knowledge can guide where, how, and when geoengineering might occur to help maintain natural ecosystem function and critical life-cycle habitat, while also minimising negative impacts on Inuit communities that may be irreversible or take time to remediate. When geoengineering projects fail to engage with Inuit and other Arctic Indigenous Peoples beyond impact assessments and technical assistance, and fail to integrate their Knowledge, these projects miss essential information and insights. Co-production of knowledge approaches, with which Inuit have extensive experience, can serve as strong models for integrating scientific and Indigenous Knowledge to inform decision-making and governance of Arctic geoengineering (8).

Justice in climate action

The colonial exploitation of Indigenous Peoples’ lands forms the background against which climate change has unfolded. In the Arctic, warming is occurring three times faster than the global average (9). Inuit have long facd the adverse effects of climate change and have consistently advocated for urgent climate action that upholds Indigenous rights. As observers to the IPCC and the UNFCCC, ICC continues to call for equitable Inuit participation in climate change research, policy development, and action, recognizing the risk that, in the rush of rapid solutions, exploitative colonial dynamics will be reproduced.

Inuit must not be made to unfairly carry the burden of climate mitigation strategies, whether geoengineering, decarbonization, or energy transition. Arguments in favour of geoengineering often invoke a sense of moral duty, asking Inuit to accept significant unknown risks in the name of urgent global action. This framing, which emphasizes the global community as stakeholders in cryosphere conservation, often erases the people who actually live in and depend on the cryosphere. For example, the declaration on the UN Decade of Cryospheric Sciences fails to recognize that Indigenous Peoples reside in the cryosphere and are reliant on it (10).

Decarbonization must also avoid placing disproportionate burdens on Indigenous Peoples who have contributed little to global carbon emissions but feel their impacts most acutely. Inuit rely on fossil fuels for travel (including access to medical care), shipping of food and goods, and for power and heating. Decarbonizing these systems across Inuit homelands must be Inuit-led and must not impose a sacrifice in living conditions.

The global momentum toward a “green transition,” also risks placing undue burdens not only on Inuit but on all Indigenous Peoples more broadly. While Siegert et al. (2025) consider mineral resource extraction and renewable power resources preferable to continued fossil fuel extraction, economic benefit is only one factor. Most known deposits of critical transition minerals are found on or near Indigenous lands, where state and industry interest is already intense (11). As demand increases, so will pressure on Indigenous Peoples to consent to and support such projects.

The development of renewable energy must likewise uphold Indigenous rights. Across Inuit homelands, renewable energy projects have been pursued with highly variable engagement — from the James Bay Hydroelectric Project in Nunavik (Northern Quebec) (12) to the more recent Fosen case in Sápmi, which demonstrated how a state’s commitment to net-zero targets can still result in the violation of the rights of Indigenous Peoples (13).

Conclusion 

While the scientific debate over the merits, risks, and feasibility of geoengineering to address climate change continues, such debates cannot overshadow the necessity of upholding Indigenous rights. Concrete policy steps are required. Any governance framework for Arctic geoengineering must ensure Indigenous Peoples are equal participants in decision-making, represented through their own processes of identification and nomination. Arctic Indigenous Peoples must be able to engage directly and through their representative organizations and bodies. Inuit have the right to determine whether—or in what manner — geoengineering projects proceed across their Homelands. Furthermore, any framework evaluating geoengineering feasibility must ethically and equitably engage with Indigenous Knowledge. Finally, the consideration Indigenous rights in climate action extend beyond geoengineering to encompass decarbonization and the energy transition, including mineral extraction and renewable energy development.

Copyright statement 

Copyright: © 2025 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.     

Generative AI statement 

The author declares that no generative AI was used in the creation of this article.

References

1. Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada. The Sea Ice is Our Highway: An Inuit Perspective on Transportation in the Arctic. Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada (2008). Available at: https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/project/the-sea-ice-is-our-highway-an-inuit-perspective-on-transportation-in-the-arctic/

2. Geoengineering Monitor. Arctic geoengineering experiment is dangerous, lacks community consent: Inupiaq organizer [online] (2019). Available at: https://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/arctic-geoengineering-experiment-is-dangerous-lacks-community-consent-inupiaq-organizer

3. Arctic Ice Project. A final chapter: reflecting on our scientific journey and next steps [online]. Available at: https://www.arcticiceproject.org/a-final-chapter/

4. Zhao L, Luo R, Wolovick M, Mettiäinen I, Moore JC. Active ice sheet conservation cannot stop the retreat of Sermeq Kujalleq glacier, Greenland. Commun Earth Environ (2025) 6:186. doi: 10.1038/s43247-025-02120-8

5. Real Ice. Real Ice Cambridge Bay, Nunavut expedition – factsheet [online]. Available at: https://www.realice.eco/cambridge-bay-field-test-fact

6. United Nations. United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples [A/RES/61/295]. United Nations General Assembly (2007). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/61/295

7. Inuit Circumpolar Council. Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Ethical and Equitable Engagement. Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) Available at: https://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/EEE-Protocols-LR-1.pdf

8. Yua E, Raymond-Yakoubian J, Aluaq Daniel D, Behe C. A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecol Soc (2022) 27(1):34. doi: 10.5751/ES-12960-270134

9. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme. Arctic climate change update 2024: key trends and impacts. Summary for policy-makers. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (2025) Available at: https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-climate-change-update-2024-key-trends-and-impacts.-summary-for-policy-makers/3847

10. Owen JR, Kemp D, Lechner AM, Harris J, Zhang R, Lèbre E. Energy transition minerals and their intersection with land-connected peoples. Nat Sustain (2023) 6:203–211. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00994-6

11. United Nations. Decade of action for cryospheric sciences, 2025-2034 [A/RES/78/321]. United Nations General Assembly (2024). Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/78/321

12. Makivvik. The fight for Inuit self-determination foretold sidebar: who owns the land [online] (2020). Available at: https://www.makivvik.ca/article/the-fight-for-inuit-self-determination-foretold-sidebar-who-owns-the-land/

13. Supreme Court of Norway. Licences for wind power development on Fosen ruled invalid as the construction violates Sami reindeer herders' right to enjoy their own culture [HR-2021-1975-S] [onlie] (2021). Available at: https://www.domstol.no/en/supremecourt/rulings/2021/supreme-court-civil-cases/hr-2021-1975-s/