Innovative geoengineering solutions aimed at preserving the polar regions may actually be counterproductive, potentially harming ecosystems and international relations while hindering efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
A recent evaluation published in Frontiers in Science scrutinizes five leading geoengineering strategies proposed for the Arctic and Antarctica. The polar areas, known for their delicate ecosystems and significant ice reserves, have seen technological interventions suggested to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
This assessment indicates that these geoengineering proposals are likely to incur high costs, reduce the impetus for emission reductions, and introduce additional legal and ecological issues. According to Prof Martin Siegert from the University of Exeter, “These ideas are often well-intentioned, but they’re flawed. As a community, climate scientists and engineers are doing all we can to reduce the harms of the climate crisis—but deploying any of these five polar projects is likely to work against the polar regions and planet.”
Dr Heidi Sevestre from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Secretariat adds, “If we instead combine our limited resources towards treating the cause instead of the symptoms, we have a fair shot at reaching net zero and restoring our climate’s health.”
The Proposals
The evaluation focused on five prominent geoengineering strategies:
-
Stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI): Introducing sulfate aerosols to reflect sunlight and reduce warming.
-
Sea curtains/walls: Constructing structures to prevent warm water from melting ice shelves.
-
Sea ice management: Enhancing sea ice thickness or reflectivity through artificial means.
-
Basal water removal: Extracting subglacial water to slow ice loss.
-
Ocean fertilization: Adding nutrients to boost phytoplankton blooms for carbon absorption.
The researchers evaluated each approach in terms of implementation scale, effectiveness, potential adverse consequences, costs, and existing governance frameworks. They also examined the attractiveness of these proposals to those avoiding emissions cuts.
Effectiveness and Feasibility: None of the strategies have undergone substantial real-world testing. SAI is limited to computer models, sea curtains and sea ice enhancement lack field experiments, ocean fertilization has inconclusive results, and glacier water removal is untested beyond drilling.
Negative Consequences: Each method poses environmental risks. For instance, SAI could deplete the ozone layer, while sea curtains might disrupt marine habitats. Other proposals risk ecological harm or logistical challenges.
Cost: Each proposal is estimated to require at least $10 billion for setup and maintenance. Sea curtains are projected to cost $80 billion over ten years for an 80 km structure.
Governance: There are no established governance structures for SAI or sea ice management. Other proposals would require extensive political negotiations under existing treaties and regulations.
Scale and Timing: Even if beneficial, the proposals cannot be implemented quickly enough to address the urgent climate crisis.
Vested Interest Appeasement: The proposals may appeal to those avoiding emission reductions, with misleading claims about preserving indigenous rights through geoengineering.
Split Resources
Geoengineering is a contentious subject, with debates about its risks and regulatory challenges. While some see it as a temporary measure, the authors argue that it diverts attention from necessary systemic changes for emission reduction.
Prof Siegert expresses concern over resource allocation, stating, “Mid-century is approaching, but our time, money, and expertise is split between evidence-backed net zero efforts and speculative geoengineering projects.” Dr Sevestre emphasizes the importance of immediate action, saying, “While research can help clarify the potential benefits and pitfalls of geoengineering, it’s crucial not to substitute immediate, evidence-based climate action for as-yet unproven methods.”
They highlight the need to focus on proven strategies while acknowledging the potential of other geoengineering ideas, such as marine cloud brightening, to be assessed against similar criteria.
The article is part of the Frontiers in Science multimedia article hub ‘Polar geoengineering: risks and realities.’
Original Story at www.frontiersin.org