The Arctic heats up quickly, but scientists say that polar geoengineering is “unrealistic” and “dangerous”

For years, scientists have been playing with the idea of ​​artificially modifying the climate by geo -engineering – in particular in the Arctic, which warms up Four times faster than the rest of the world.

The main proposals include the artificially thickening of sea ice, the fertilization of the ocean with iron and the release of particles reflecting sunlight in the atmosphere to reduce the effect of warming of the sun.

Although the feasibility of these ideas has always been questionable, the researchers now say in a new study, they are sure that they are a waste of time and money.

A large part of the group met with a joint effort after COP28 in Dubai, when they gathered to denounce the polar geo-engineering. For the document, they examined the five of the most developed geo-engineering proposals currently underway for use in the polar regions and found that they all failed basic criteria and could make “severe environmental damage”.

Their results were published in the journal Science borders Monday.

“There are many false hopes created, which suggests that a small intervention will solve the problem,” said co-author Martin Sommerkorn of the World Wildfire Fund.

“There is really no shortcuts to repair climate change. … Our research really shows that there is a long -term commitment required over several years.”

We don’t know enough

“At the nominal value, many of these techniques logically have a meaning … But once you start thinking about it in a practical sense, it is simply not,” said Helen Amanda Fricker, professor of Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego and one of the main authors of the study.

The problem, she said, is that most people do not make the scale of certain glacial caps-“beyond human understanding”.

She focused on browsing all the literature published on the release of the basal water from under the glaciers to prevent them from moving so quickly. She said the strategy had too many logistical problems.

The recent article was a group effort, but the researchers worked on specific sections, examining the most frequently proposed geo-engineering methods and evaluating their feasibility, their effectiveness, their cost, how they would be governed and the negative consequences possible.

“We did it very carefully and it took a long time and was systematic,” said Fricker.

The Julienne Stroeve paper co -author of the University of Manitoba also said that even if solutions had to work locally – although it would still not find them realistic – there would always be second -rate consequences in other parts of the world.

“Even if you try to cool the Arctic by helping the ice at sea longer, so you always warm up the average latitudes or the equator,” Stroeve told CBC News.

“Then, you will simply invigorate all your storm systems to bring this excess heat to the polar regions, because this is what our weather conditions do.”

Projects such as solar geo-engineering in the Arctic could technically be possible, she said, but could have unexpected consequences, such as the disruption of precipitation systems in the world South.

The document also mentions how investment more resources in geoengineering research distracts what researchers really say necessary: ​​a reduction in carbon emissions – quickly.

A distraction of decarbonization?

However, others do not agree.

Steve Desch is professor of astrophysics at Arizona State University. He thinks that the fight against climate change will require several approaches, but is not surprised by the conclusions of the document.

“This is not the first time that we have encountered this kind of attitude, and I think it is a very pleasant reaction and a naive vision of the reality of our time,” he said.

“I think that the role of scientists is to explore the physical ramifications and the technological feasibility of different things and acquire stakeholders with the costs and benefits of the different options, then let everyone decide.”

Desch said he did not think that anyone involved in geo-engineering would say that they should replace decarbonization.

“We all agree that decarbonization is essential,” he said. “But in the meantime, should we not explore these other options to prevent things from worsening too?”

Desch has seen progress in his own research, where he artificially tested the thickening of sea ice by pumping water on it. Although he says that additional research is necessary, he sees the potential to do so with part of the Arctic.

“We are convinced that whatever the effects he would have in relation to the complete loss of sea ice, for which we are heading.”

Governance

Greg Henry has been working in the Arctic for over 40 years. He saw first -hand at what speed the Arctic changes.

“The speed of what is happening is the frightening part, and I can understand why we are at the stage where these scientists and engineers offer these projects on a planetary scale to buy us time,” he said.

Henry, professor emeritus in geography at the University of British Columbia, says that he understands why people are looking for solutions, but still find geo-engineering too risky.

He thinks that resources should rather focus on decarbonization.

“We really don’t have a complete understanding of what would happen if we throw a lot of particles in the stratosphere,” said Henry.

Although some large volcanic eruptions have turned out to cool the planet, it says it is difficult to reproduce anything on this scale, and it is not clear how projects like this will affect the Aboriginal communities of the Arctic.

“These projects are so huge and so dear and so loaded with involuntary consequences, it seems almost silly to take them.”

Henry underlines China as an example of a country progressing towards decarbonization and solar energy. He says that it is for political reasons – to reduce his dependence on foreign oil – and easier to implement due to his current political system, but this shows that it is possible to change.

“You might say that our own more progressive government in Canada did not really jump to challenge here,” he said. “I personally think that (decarbonization) should be one of the major projects of the liberal government.”