The climate conversation is shifting. Recent media coverage has been noticeably more open to serious research into climate repair and while this isn’t about the Centre for Climate Repair (CCR) per se, it reflects a broader recognition: on our current trajectory, emissions reductions alone will not keep global warming below 1.5°C. Net zero remains the non-negotiable foundation—enshrined in law and indispensable—but the scale and pace of change now demand a fuller strategy. At CCR, that strategy is the “Three Rs”: Reduce emissions, Remove atmospheric carbon and Refreeze the Arctic. Each is essential; none is sufficient on its own.
Reduce Emissions: The First Firm Priority
Emissions have increased by roughly 65% since 1990, with notable dips during the 2009 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic, followed by rebounds to near-record levels by 2021–2023.
There is no equivocation: emissions reduction is front and centre of everything that follows. Without rapid, large-scale cuts, climate repair becomes an exercise in diminishing returns. Restoration measures can only buy time, not replace decarbonisation. This is why our research consistently frames any intervention within a hard constraint—if society does not deliver deep emissions cuts, efforts such as sea-ice rethickening are ultimately futile. The work we pursue is designed to be complementary, not competitive, with decarbonisation. Framed properly, research into climate repair can sharpen the urgency of mitigation rather than dilute it: the message is that emissions cuts are the condition for success, not a negotiable option.
Remove Atmospheric Carbon: Building the Knowledge Base
The second R—removal—covers a spectrum of approaches from ecosystem restoration to engineered solutions. Here the research question is not ideological but empirical: what works, at what scale, with what risks and co-benefits – and under what governance? A recurring theme in our programme is to identify not only the promising levers but also those we should not pull. This “negative learning” is as valuable as breakthroughs, preventing missteps and guiding scarce resources to interventions that genuinely help. Our approach is to proceed stepwise: understand the science, test feasibility in controlled and field settings, evaluate impacts with affected communities and then, only if evidence warrants, consider pathways to scale governed through robust, multinational processes. Effectiveness, equity and ethics are inseparable in this domain.
Refreeze the Arctic: Collaboration, Feasibility and Limits
The third R—refreezing the Arctic—has moved from speculative concept to structured inquiry. One focus is re-thickening sea ice through wintertime interventions, examined via modelling and small-scale field experiments. Early signals suggest that while the numbers involved are large—because the climate system is large—the engineering challenges may be tractable. We have done bigger things as a species; the question is not raw feasibility but scientific validity, governance and societal consent. Our current phase is firmly about understanding whether such interventions make sense physically and ecologically, not about deployment.
Crucially, this work is co-created with Indigenous communities in the regions where research occurs. This is not a researcher-led project operating on someone else’s land; it is collaborative fieldwork in which local people are integral members of the team. Their lived experience—of later-forming autumn ice, earlier spring melt, disrupted migration routes for caribou, and constrained access to seals—underscores the economic stakes. In high-cost northern communities, hunting is not a cultural pastime but a vital component of household food security. The communities most affected by sea-ice loss therefore have both a practical and moral claim to shape research design, implementation, and any future applications. If one day any intervention were considered for deployment, it would by necessity be community-led.
From Research to Governance: Preparing for Hard Choices
What happens if the evidence shows an intervention is feasible, scalable and effective and parts of the world face acute, lethal heat or other climate emergencies? The question then moves from laboratories to legislatures and international institutions. Decisions about deployment cannot be taken unilaterally; they demand anticipatory governance—multinational, transparent, and accountable—well before any crisis compels action. Our role as researchers is to generate reliable knowledge and options; society’s role is to determine, through inclusive governance, whether and how to use them. That conversation must begin now, not at the height of an emergency.
A Ten-Year Roadmap
We are operating on a decisive timescale. The vision for the next decade is to determine which approaches across the Three Rs are truly scalable and to develop credible roadmaps for rapid expansion if society chooses to proceed. Not all lines of inquiry will prove out—indeed, some will rightly be set aside. But by the end of this 10-year programme, we aim to have established what works, what doesn’t and what is ready to scale responsibly.
The Centre for Climate Repair’s mission is not to promise silver bullets; it is to deliver clarity. Emissions reduction remains the immovable first pillar. Carbon removal is a necessary complement. Arctic refreezing, if validated, may buy time to protect critical cryospheric systems while decarbonisation accelerates. Together, these strands form a pragmatic response to an extraordinary challenge—grounded in science, guided by communities and oriented toward governance that matches the stakes.
