Protect Arctic From 'Dangerous' Climate Engineering, Scientists Warn
- Reference: 0179118604
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/10/0113223/protect-arctic-from-dangerous-climate-engineering-scientists-warn
- Source link:
> 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, [2]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.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yqw996q1ko
[2] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393/full
We need every solution (Score:2)
No carbon reduction plan is going to be enough on its own. No aerosol plan is going to be enough on its own. Climate change is a huge problem and there is no huge solution, so lots of little solutions are our best option.
Re: (Score:1)
> Climate change is a huge problem and there is no huge solution, so lots of little solutions are our best option.
One "little solution" to consider is some nuclear icebreakers for the US Coast Guard. That gives a start on reducing CO2 emissions, reduces pollution spread into the sensitive Arctic environment, and provides the USCG with considerably more capability for protecting the Arctic from pollution, enforcing rules on fishing, search and rescue, weather monitoring, and other missions to keep the Arctic Sea clean, safe, and open for shorter shipping routes that can reduce CO2 emissions and pollution.
I recall a pla
Re: (Score:2)
> I see this as a small step to a larger solution. With more experience in nuclear powered vessels smaller than an aircraft carrier, and not as restricted in engineering as nuclear submarines, could open us up to seeing civilian vessels using nuclear power. If the goal is reduced CO2 emissions then nuclear powered ships should be an option, in spite of the opinion of a previous USCG commandant.
Naval nuclear reactors are fundamentally different from civilian. The key difference being that they can and do use weapons grade enriched uranium. That makes it much easier to build a compact reactor and conversely somewhat easier to run it safely. What this means, unfortunately, is that the lessons of naval nuclear reactors are no use in the civilian sphere. Anything even vaguely "civilian" can't be allowed to use weapons grade uranium as there's just too much risk of someone stealing the fuel and using i
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of nuances here.
1. Primary safety increase for naval reactors is their small size, not weapon grade fuel. 150-250 300MWt vs up 6GWt for a nuclear power plant. Note MWt and GWt is referring to thermal power. They're only about 33% efficient at turning it into electricity. Makes passive cooling easier, plus ships have effectively unlimited cooling water available.
2. We burned an awful lot of weapon grade uranium, mostly from Russia, in our power plants. Diluted it down first, of course.
3.
Re: (Score:1)
> No carbon reduction plan is going to be enough on its own. No aerosol plan is going to be enough on its own. Climate change is a huge problem and there is no huge solution, so lots of little solutions are our best option.
There is one simple critical solution which has to be pushed now at maximum speed, integrated generation and storage of renewable energy. Renewable energy, as in solar, is now cheaper than any other form of energy. Renewable energy, as in new wind projects, is now cheaper than any other source of energy other than solar and completely uncleaned coal power which nobody is installing anymore and which is just so dirty that it needs to be deleted. That's one side of the equation.
The other side of the equation
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you assert "there is no huge solution" when there absolutely is?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would you assert "there is no huge solution" when there absolutely is?
The simple single huge solution requires government action. The main sources of CO2 are outside people's direct individual control. The oil companies and other big commercial interests that would end up having to actually do something want to avoid that so they try to get people to do individual little things that don't work to the extent that the people get tired and don't demand the actual political action that would fix things.
The plan is simple to say (though not to do):
* huge amounts of renewables now
Earth is in no obligation to support human life (Score:2)
We should spend more time getting ready for the fact that, even though we created global warming, Earth has warmed and cooled of its own volition in the past and is not contractually obliged to hold a comfortable temperature range or a certain sea level. Species adapt or die. Stop building in floodplains maybe?
Now that we know the ice caps can melt and raise sea levels to a certain height, maybe we should go live in a high place.
What are you going to do if the sun suddenly warms up in an unexpected way, are
Re: (Score:2)
> Earth has warmed and cooled of its own volition in the past...
Are you dense or a fossil fuel shill ?
It is the speed of the warming, not the fact warming is happening. There is no question CO2 emissions from Fossil Fuel use is causing this crisis.
Also, the sun "warming" has absolutely no impact on the Earth in any measurable amount. After millions of years the sun will have some impact, not after 100 years. Earth's tilt has a greater impact and that tilt changes over many thousands of years, over 100 years, no impact at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Advocating that society should be engineered towards resilience is not a new thing, it's what keeps us safe from earthquakes, for example.
You have no guarantee that we can stop global warming. I happen to think we will not. Too many politics, laziness and complacency.
It is not an unreasonable demand, what we try to build better insulated houses, further away from the sea. Just in case.
Re: (Score:1)
> It is the speed of the warming, not the fact warming is happening.
That doesn't address the issue. Regardless of the speed of the warming and cooling of the Earth if human civilization is to expect to survive and thrive on Earth then we will need to consider adaptations to these changes in climate.
Consider that most any civil engineering project will be expected to last at least 100 years with minimal maintenance. If we can slow the warming down, and therefore reduce sea level rise and other issues that could impact the construction of dams, bridges, highways, airports,
Absolutely (Score:1, Troll)
All these climate engineering ideas are insane. The truth is that the current models don't work very well. Climate is hugely complex, and there are a lot of natural phenomena that are poorly understood. Trying to *deliberately* make global changes (as opposed to trying not to, for example, by not burning coal) is just bonkers.
Much like the greenwashing projects - there's good money to be had, if you can scam someone out of it. Consequences be damned...
Re: (Score:1)
If your house is on fire, I bet you would oppose evacuating the building because the wasted effort just gets in the way of putting out the fire. People with your attitude arent as bad as the climate deniers, but you’re a close second. The climate deniers scream “change nothing” and the mitigation deniers scream “do nothing to mitigate harm while everyone address the problem the way I demand”.
Thats like medical doctors (Score:4, Informative)
Opposing Narcan, because the drug users should “just focus on getting clean” and arguing that harm mitigation efforts just encourage more drug use.
Re: (Score:3)
Overall, a better approach than the doctor saying "Fentanyl isn't really that bad. You can keep shooting up as long as you have Narcan."
Re: Thats like medical doctors (Score:1)
Not really; did you read the publication? Drug mitigation post use has a positive net benefit. The publication argues that there would likely be a negative benefit. E.g. additional damage from climate engineering likely outweighs any positive contribution.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (Score:1)
Those scientists in favour of geo-engineering climate change solutions seem to be broadly taking the view that, since we are incapable of actually reducing our CO2 emissions, we ought to at least consider any other options to mitigate the problem, and fund some serious research into "sticking plasters". The recent article (available to download from Frontiers in Science) points out that all of the proposals up to now are pretty much infeasible at the scale required, and would likely cause more harm than go
They are missing the point (Score:3)
Net zero will not happen soon enough, we have rung the alarm bell enough times, to the point of breaking it. Realistically, the only way it can happen quickly is through a major catastrophe, as in billions of people dying. It doesn't mean we should stop our efforts, but it is simply not a short term solution.
It means that if climate change is as bad as people make it to be, and we don't want billions of death, we *need* alternative solutions. And it means geoengineering.
Now, maybe climate change is not that bad and we can control it with moderate effort regarding greenhouse gases, and as a result we won't need geoengineering. It would be great, but it shouldn't stop us from researching these alternatives, because if we need them, we *need* them.
Re: (Score:2)
You can spin your wheels looking for an alternative to an alternative, or you can actually fix the problem.
We don't need more tech. We have proven solutions ready to deploy. What's missing is leadership. As we speak, wind farm construction is being halted by the DoE for political reasons. If the people in power cared about solving the problem, it would be solved already. All the tech in the world can't help you if you aren't allowed to deploy it.
A solution is a solution (Score:1)
> 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
Is there a term for this socialist mainstay? The one where they have a shit solution that doesn't work, and work to stop any alternatives from emerging lest their victims escape?