Have a question?

Can we cool the Earth by covering more of it with snow?

More snow cover could reflect more sunlight back into space. But tinkering with the climate is not something to be taken lightly.

 

Updated May 11, 2026

If you’ve ever been sunburned on a ski trip, then you’ve experienced firsthand snow’s talent for reflecting sunlight. Snow and ice are so good at reflecting light, in fact, that they play an important role in regulating the Earth’s climate by bouncing some of the sun’s rays back out into space. The loss of snow and ice cover caused by climate change is a troubling trend because it reduces the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight.

But what if humanity tried to turn the tide of snow cover? After all, ski resorts cover their slopes in fake snow when Mother Nature doesn’t provide enough of the white stuff. So, perhaps, countries could decide to cover more of the Earth’s surface in artificial snow, reflecting more light back into space, thereby cooling the planet.

Visiting climatologist at MIT Judah Cohen says the idea has promise—in theory. But in practice, creating enough snow to cool the planet may be impossible. And like other kinds of geoengineering (which is a term for altering the climate via large-scale engineering projects), it could spark a series of unintended consequences for our weather and climate.

Why does the idea have promise? In short, because snow is really good at reflecting sunlight. Scientists use the term albedo to refer to the percentage of light a given material reflects. The Earth has an average albedo of about 0.3, meaning it reflects 30 percent of the sun’s light.1 The ocean’s albedo is very low because water (which covers about two-thirds of our planet) is so good at absorbing solar energy. But ice is good at reflecting sunlight, and snow is even better—it reflects about 80 percent of sunlight, Cohen says, the highest naturally occurring albedo. Plus, snow is especially good at emitting longwave radiation back to space, especially on clear nights when no clouds are in the way.2 This cools the surface even more.

Given these cooling effects, it could make sense to want more of the planet to be snow-covered to combat rising global temperatures. But here’s the first problem Cohen points out: Where would you put it? To get the most bang for your buck, you’d need to put a lot of snow in a sunny place so it could reflect a lot of light. But it can’t be somewhere too warm, either. “If you covered Florida in snow, it’s not going to have much impact because it’ll be gone before you do anything,” he says. Only a few parts of the world, such as Siberia and the Tibetan Plateau, qualify as good candidates, because they are large areas that are cold enough to maintain snow cover, sunny enough for the snow to reflect a lot of light, and have seen diminishing natural snow cover because of climate change.

Then there is the problem of producing so much artificial snow, enough to cover thousands upon thousands of square miles. And just like a ski resort, this geoengineering endeavor would need to pile up snow at such a depth that the ground would not be exposed if some of the snow melts. “For this to be something that has an impact on a global scale, you’re talking about huge amounts of water, impractical amounts of water,” Cohen says. A world in which freshwater scarcity is a worsening problem probably can’t afford this, he says.

Another issue is that making a lot of fake snow also requires a lot of energy—and if that energy comes from fossil fuels, then it contributes to the very problem that the snow was intended to solve. A 2011 study of Swedish ski resorts found that even a newer, more efficient approach to snowmaking required around 1 kilowatt hour of electricity to make a cubic meter of snow.3 (Covering Beijing in fake snow for the 2022 Winter Olympics reportedly required 1.5 kWh per cubic meter.4) To cover just one square mile of terrain with snow one meter deep, you’d need more than 2,500,000 cubic meters of snow, and thus, 2.5 gigawatt hours. According to the Department of Energy, the whole United States has a little over 200 gigawatts of solar energy capacity.5 This means that covering a whole region in snow would require a significant chunk of a country’s low-carbon energy—energy it needs for many other uses.

But even more concerning is the idea of tinkering with the delicate, interconnected systems that govern the climate. Geoengineering schemes, whether adding fake snow cover or seeding the atmosphere to create more clouds, can set off a domino effect of unplanned and surprising consequences. In the case of adding snow cover, Cohen says, one could alter the circulation of the atmosphere above the newly introduced-snow. In his research, he has argued that additional snow covering Siberia could disrupt the polar vortex, a persistent weather pattern over the North Pole, setting off a cascade of wide-reaching effects including a drier Western United States—a region already afflicted by drought.

Albedo is powerful. If people could summon the political will, the freshwater supplies, and the required clean energy to cover a huge swath of the planet in snow, then yes—this could, in theory, be enough to help cool the Earth, Cohen says. But the challenges and unknown consequences of doing so make it a difficult solution to argue for.

“There’s no free lunch here,” he says.

 

Thank you to Deborah of Alexandria, Virginia, for the question. You can submit your own question to Ask MIT Climate here.

Read more Ask MIT Climate

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).
Footnotes

1 NASA Earth Observatory: Measuring Earth's Albedo. Accessed May 17, 2022.

2 Weather 5280: Fresh Snow Cover and Clear Skies: Why So Cold at Night? By Noah Brauer, January 10, 2017. Accessed May 17, 2022.

3 Energi & Kylanalys. "Energy usage for snowmaking." April 2011. Accessed May 17, 2022.

4 "We couldn’t have the Beijing Olympics without snow machines. How do they work, and what’s the environmental cost?" By Chiara Neto and Isaac Gresham, The Conversation, February 13, 2022. Accessed May 17, 2022.

5 U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly - Estimated Net Summer Solar Photovoltaic Capacity From Utility and Small Scale Facilities. Accessed May 11, 2026.

Want to Learn More?

Listen to this episode of MIT's "Today I Learned: Climate" podcast on geoengineering.

Transcriptions

JP: [00:00:00] Who should decide whether or not we should even consider this technology? Should it be one country unilaterally deciding? Or should a group in the UN General Assembly sit down and decide, or in the board meeting of Exxon Mobil?

LHF: [00:00:21] Welcome to TIL Climate, the show where you learn about climate change from real scientists. I’m your host Laur Hesse Fisher, from the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative.

When people talk about climate change solutions, they’re usually talking about either stopping adding CO2 to the atmosphere, or how humans can adapt to climate change. There’s also a third option that’s starting to get more attention.

JP: [00:00:47] My name is Janos Pasztor. I am Executive Director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative.

LHF: [00:00:55] Mr. Pasztor is an MIT alum who was appointed by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, to lead his office on climate change. He also worked on the UN Paris Agreement, where nearly every country around the world pledged to cap global warming.

JP: [00:01:10] Climate change action has been focused first on reducing emissions, which was correct. Then at some point people started thinking that we also have to adapt to the changes that are already taking place. But now when we put everything together, we have to realize that there is something else that is needed.

Even if one were to stop all global emissions today, which of course is a very difficult thing to do, but even if we were to do that, there's enough carbon in the atmosphere that global temperatures would still rise and would stay like that for a few hundred years. So we have a problem.

LHF: [00:01:51] In addition to no longer adding CO2, we also need to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if we can’t take out the CO2 fast enough, then we could try to reflect sunlight or otherwise stop the earth from warming.

This is why some people are starting to talk about geoengineering.

JP: [00:02:12] The way it's defined it is "intentional large-scale interaction with the atmosphere." Large scale meaning planetary scale, in order to address the climate change problem.

LHF: [00:02:26] Generally speaking, there are two types of geoengineering: the first is about sucking existing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

There are lots of way to do that. We all know that plants absorb CO2, but so do soil and rocks, and there are things we could do to help accelerate what nature already does. People are also creating chemicals that react with the CO2 in the air, capture it, and turn it into something that could be stored or used for another purpose, like plastics. We could also combine these two approaches: grow plants, burn them for electricity, but then immediately capture the CO2 and store it, which could produce energy and suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. If you want to learn more about these technologies, we’ll have some quick reads in our show notes.

While there are definitely things that need to be worked out -- like land use issues and how to pay for these technologies -- removing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is something people are paying more attention to.

JP: [00:03:26] There are lots of experiments going on lots of little companies doing things. We saw that at the UN climate change conference in December of 2018, there was a lot more discussion about carbon dioxide removal than ever before.

LHF: [00:03:41] But where there’s less known -- and more debate -- is with the second type of geoengineering, called solar radiation modification.

This kind of geoengineering doesn’t try to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere -- it focuses on reducing the amount of heat that gets trapped there.

JP: [00:04:01] There are ways to change the clouds and make them thinner or make them more reflective to alter the radiation balance of the earth. But there are other methods like changing the albedo of ice for example in the Arctic. There's an experiment going on right now in Alaska to do that. Both of these would result in cooling the planet.

Now. This looks like science fiction stuff, but one thing that people have thought about is space-based mirrors. You know shoot up a bunch of rockets and put up big mirrors that would literally reflect sunlight back into space before entering the atmosphere.

So there are different things scientists think we can do, but the one that is most commonly talked about is the stratospheric aerosol injection.

LHF: [00:04:51] That’s a fancy phrase for spraying a particular kind of particle -- a sulfur aerosol -- into the atmosphere. This part relates back to the conversation we had with Prof. Dan Cziczo in our episode on clouds. I recommend you checking out for more info on how particles help form clouds.

OK, so this technology, “stratospheric aerosol injection”, mimics something that volcanoes do naturally.

JP: [00:05:18] The volcano erupts and lots of gases and rocks and dust and everything else escape, including so called sulfur aerosols that reflect sunlight back into space and cool the temperature of the Earth. And in fact after a major volcanic eruption like the recent one in Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, the world could measure that actually the global temperature went down by about a half a degree and stayed like that for a year almost and then went up again.

LHF: [00:05:49] And so some scientists are exploring how to replicate this artificially. For example, jets could circle the Earth a few times a day, spraying these particles into the upper atmosphere. And then these particles would reflect about 1% of the incoming light from the sun, thereby cooling our planet.

But of course, there’s no free lunch.

JP: [00:06:12] This technology also has impacts. First of all, it reduces sunlight that comes into to reach the Earth and that will have an impact on agriculture, on forests, on ecosystems. It will also change the weather patterns and we don't quite know how much but we need to find out before we take any decisions.

LHF: [00:06:31] The other issue is if this technology were to be used alone without reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s kind of a Band-Aid solution.

JP: [00:06:39] Once we get going with solar radiation modification, you can't just simply switch it off. If you do it for let's say 10 years or 20 years and you suddenly stop, and you haven’t reduced the concentration of greenhouse gases, the temperature will jump up to what it would have been otherwise. And jumping up quickly would be even worse for the ecosystems then slowly ramping it up. So you're taking lots of decisions for future generations. And once you start it, they don't really have a choice.

And then there of course, and it's the biggest challenge of all, is that we only have one atmosphere. And this technology would manipulate that one atmosphere. If we get it wrong, we've had it. So so we need to be absolutely sure that we're doing things right. There are no easy answers here.

LHF: [00:07:35] In his organization, Mr. Pasztor is trying to open up a global conversation about how we, as a society, make decisions about geoengineering, while these technologies are still young.

JP: [00:07:48] On solar radiation modification, nothing is happening other than a few modeling ideas and a few, maybe some small experiments, but first of all, who should decide whether or not we should even consider this technology? Should it be one country unilaterally deciding? Or should a group in the UN General Assembly sit down and decide, or the UN Security Council? Or in the board meeting of Exxon Mobil?

There is for example, an interesting scientific paper that showed that it would be possible to do hemispheric, only Northern Hemisphere deployment of solar radiation modification, that could help in reducing frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Caribbean.

There's only one problem: it would result in a massive drought in the Sahel in Africa. You cannot have just the northern hemispheric countries decide, "we're going to do this and who cares about the Sahel?" The systems are interconnected.

LHF: [00:08:46] Interestingly enough, one of the complicating factors of stratospheric aerosol injection is that it could be the cheapest technology to deal with global warming.

JP: [00:08:57] As little as two to three billion dollars annually for the first 15 years. Now that's nothing compared to the global cost of emission reductions or carbon dioxide removal, which should be measured in the trillions.

So these are questions that need to be addressed now, before somebody, it could be that a country decides to announce deployment in a few years from now. Or an individual who is a wealthy person says, "I want to save the world. And I'm going to use my money and I'm just going to start flying these airplanes and start spraying the stratosphere with with the with aerosols."

Geoengineering is not just philosophical, it's not just ethical, but it's actually basically a risk management issue. Each technology has some positive and some negative impacts. There is no Silver Bullet, and there are no easy and quick solutions.

LHF: [00:09:58] So there’s a lot more that we need to know in order to understand how these technologies will work and, more importantly, how parts of the world could be impacted. But once we know, it’s then not a matter of research, it’s a societal decision we’ll need to make about intentionally modifying our atmosphere, our planet.

This episode was one of the hardest one to create so far -- it is a real challenge to boil down something so technologically and morally complex as geoengineering into 10 minutes.

So in our show notes, we’ve included more resources where you can learn more about these technologies and some of the issues that come along with them.

Now you may or may not be a part of the UN General Assembly, but you do have political officials who represent you, and perhaps also may be connected to nonprofit organizations working on these kinds of issues. Share this episode or the resources in our notes with them, and open up the conversation so we can make informed decisions about our future.

Thank you for joining us on this first set of episodes from Today I Learned: Climate. In this past month and a half we’ve learned about how planes and condensation trails warm our planet, how clouds cool our planet and what particulate matter has to do with that. We talked about steel and cement, hurricanes, how to think about risk and uncertainty, how climate change will impact different parts of the world in different ways, and we started digging into the solution areas like carbon pricing and geoengineering. But we are just getting started. This was our first set of episodes and we really hope that you enjoyed them. We’re going to take these next few months to work on another set of episodes for you that we’ll release this September and October, and in the meantime we love hearing from our listeners, so send us your questions, your comments, what you would like us to cover in the next set of episodes. Tweet us @TILclimate or email us at TILclimate@mit.edu. Thank you so much for tuning in, and thank you to Mr. Pasztor for speaking with us for this episode. See you next time.