According to a new assessment, published in Frontiers in Science, the five most popular and developed geoengineering proposals currently being considered for use in Antarctica and the Arctic could instead harm ecosystems and harm our chances of reaching net zero by 2050.
The report argued that we have to safeguard the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering proposals. It found that the five polar proposals are likely to cost billions in set-up and maintenance, while reducing pressure on policymakers and carbon-intensive industries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposals were also found likely to introduce additional ecological, environmental, legal, and political challenges. The five ideas were found to risk intrinsic environmental damage, as well as introduce significant infrastructure in a fragile environment and increase human presence into these challenging polar regions.
Lead author Professor Martin Siegert from University of Exeter, said:
“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.”
The five geoengineering proposals
The five geoengineering proposals that have received the most attention to date and which were evaluated in the report were:
- stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI): releasing sunlight-reflecting particles such as sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to reduce the sun’s warming effect;
- sea curtains/walls: flexible, buoyant structures anchored to the seabed to prevent warm water from reaching and melting ice shelves;
- sea ice management: pumping seawater onto sea ice to artificially thicken it, or scattering glass microbeads onto sea ice to boost its reflectivity;
- basal water removal: pumping subglacial water away from underneath glaciers to slow ice sheet flow and reduce ice loss; and
- ocean fertilization: adding nutrients such as iron to polar oceans to stimulate blooms of phytoplankton – microscopic creatures that draw carbon into the deep ocean when they die.
All of these were judged against a range of factors, including long-term governance, to evaluate how serious they might be as solutions.
“Fantastical science fiction”
The report abstract concluded that: “According to our assessment, no current geoengineering idea passes an objective and comprehensive test regarding its use in the coming decades. Rather, many of the proposed ideas are environmentally dangerous. Given their feasibility challenges and risks of negative consequences, these ideas should not distract from the priority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Siegert et al went further, though, and suggested that the feasibility, scale, time for delivery, cost, political and legal governance, as well as the inherent negative consequences of these proposals, meant that they were “science fiction”:
“The Polar geoengineering interventions discussed here are largely a fantastical science fiction. They will play no role in mitigating global warming. Decarbonizing to net zero is the only feasible approach to the problem, and this requires our complete attention without unnecessary distraction or diversion.”
Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering, by Professor Martin Siegert et al
They also argued that those pushing geoengineering proposals in a complex, fragile environment, were doing so for reasons of vested interest, rather than being focused on necessary climate action.
“Geoengineering proposals give a false hope that the effects of global warming can be avoided by means other than rapid, deep cuts to GHG emissions. To some with vested interests in the fossil-fuel economy, however, such proposals are appealing, as they offer them a way to justify continued emissions under a pretense of climate action.”
Climate action is needed in Antarctica
The new Frontiers in Science report made it clear that: “The burning of fossil fuels and the resulting global warming are unequivocally damaging the polar regions.”
Professor Nerilie Abrams of the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia, was one of the lead authors of a new report in the scientific journal Nature which also highlighted the evidence of abrupt changes in the Antarctic environment.
Abrams’ report warned that, even with low emission pathways, unstoppable ice loss in Antarctica could still happen: “The tipping point for unstoppable ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be exceeded even under best-case CO2 emission reduction pathways, potentially initiating global tipping cascades.”
Treat the cause not the symptoms
Although Siegert et al acknowledge the importance of explorative research, they say that continuing to pursue these five polar geoengineering proposals could shift focus and urgency from the deep systemic change needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering, they argue, therefore risks splitting monetary and research resources when time is of the essence. As the report stated: “Minimizing risk and damage from climate change is best achieved by mitigating the cause of climate harm through immediate, rapid and deep decarbonization, rather than attempting interventions in fragile polar ecosystems.“
“Mid-century is approaching, but our time, money, and expertise is split between evidence-backed net zero efforts and speculative geoengineering projects”, said Siegert. “We’re hopeful that we can eliminate emissions by 2050, as long as we combine our efforts towards reaching zero emissions.”
“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. Crucially, these approaches should not distract from the urgent priority of reducing emissions and investing in proven mitigation strategies”, said Dr Heidi Sevestre from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Secretariat.
She continued: “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.”
Decarbonisation is key
To interfere in the fragile, complex ecosystem of the polar regions without a full understanding of the long-term global impacts and consequences of the proposed actions, is a pathway of inherent danger. As well as allowing fossil-fuel emitters to continue with their business as usual, it could damage our planet forever through unforeseen consequences well beyond our capability to fix.
We have solutions available to restore our climate’s health – untested geoengineering proposals should not be a pathway to waste our time and energy on. Siegert powerfully argues that: “The good news is that we have existing goals that we know will work. Global heating will likely stabilize within 20 years of us reaching net zero. Temperatures would stop climbing, offering substantial benefits for the polar regions, the planet, and all lifeforms.”
Decarbonisation is key, rather than unethical and irresponsible geoengineering proposals which only offer the illusion of climate action.
