Protect Arctic From 'Dangerous' Climate Engineering, Scientists Warn

Dozens of polar scientists have warned that geoengineering schemes to manipulate the Arctic and Antarctic are dangerous, impractical, and risk distracting from the urgent need to cut fossil fuel emissions. The BBC reports: These polar 'geoengineering' techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thickening sea-ice or releasing tiny, reflective particles into the atmosphere. They have gained attention as potential future tools to combat global warming, alongside cutting carbon emissions. But more than 40 researchers say they could bring 'severe environmental damage' and urged countries to simply focus on reaching net zero, the only established way to limit global warming.

The scientists behind the new assessment, published in the journal Frontiers in Science, reviewed the evidence for five of the most widely discussed polar geoengineering ideas. All fail to meet basic criteria for their feasibility and potential environmental risks, they say. One such suggestion is releasing tiny, reflective particles called aerosols high into the atmosphere to cool the planet. This often attracts attention among online conspiracy theorists, who falsely claim that condensation trails in the sky -- water vapour created from aircraft jet engines -- is evidence of sinister large-scale geoengineering today. But many scientists have more legitimate concerns, including disruption to weather patterns around the world.

With those potential knock-on effects, that also raises the question of who decides to use it -- especially in the Arctic and Antarctic, where governance is not straightforward. If a country were to deploy geoengineering against the wishes of others, it could 'increase geopolitical tensions in polar regions,' according to Dr Valerie Masson-Delmotte, senior scientist at the Universite Paris Saclay in France. Another fear is that while some of the ideas may be theoretically possible, the enormous costs and time to scale-up mean they are extremely unlikely to make a difference, according to the review.

A more fundamental concern is that these types of projects could create the illusion of an alternative to cutting humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases. 'If they are promoted... then they are a distraction because to some people they will be a solution to the climate crisis that doesn't require decarbonising,' said Prof Siegert. 'Of course that would not be true and that's why we think they can be potentially damaging.' Even supporters of geoengineering research agree that it is, at best, a supplement to net zero, not a substitution.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.