Recently, we wrote about an idea that involves spraying moon dust in our atmosphere to protect our planet from sunlight. writes about a similar idea that scientists are currently exploring, which looks to reflect sunlight back into space, as this could help refreeze our poles.

This implies spraying chemicals such as sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. This process proved itself effective in 1991, when Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted and unleashed the very same chemical, temporarily cooling our planet's temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius.

The natural demonstration of the process determined scientists at Yale University to propose doing the same thing on purpose last year in September.

However, experts at the UN Environmental Program argue that this is not such a good idea, nor is it sustainable.

UNEP’s Chief Scientist, Andrea Hinwood, said that "UNEP concurs with the panel that, at present, large-scale, or operational deployment of SRM (solar radiation modification) technologies is not necessary, viable, prudent or sufficiently safe, given the limited scientific understanding and uncertainty about the potential impacts and unintended consequences."

"The review concludes that SRM cannot replace reducing greenhouse gas emissions", she added.

Still, UN scientist are taking this measure into consideration as a helper, should climate action be otherwise insufficient.

Experts at Yale still strongly believe that the benefits of this technique, temporary as it is, could be great for our planet.

By their plan, 125 planes would periodically fly around Northern Alaska and Southern Patagonia to spray the sun-reflecting chemicals, thus reducing temperatures below by two degrees Celsius. This would be a fairly expensive operation, however, at over 11 billion euros.

There is a major issue with this idea, besides the fact that it's benefits would be pretty much local, at the poles.

The bigger problem is that around 175.000 particle-spraying flights would be required every year to keep the process effective, which is very obviously going to generate more issues on a planet level.

Even lead author Wake Smith from Yale University said that this solution "it’s not a substitute for decarbonization."