For years, scientists have been playing with the idea of artificially modify four times faster than the rest of the world.
The main proposals include artificially swelling sea ice, fertilizing the ocean with iron and release particles that reflect sunlight in the atmosphere to reduce the heating effect of the sun.
Although the viability of these ideas was always questionable, researchers now say in a new study that they are sure that they are a loss of time and money.
Much of the group met through a joint effort after COP28 in Dubai, when they joined to denounce polar geo -ngealry. For the document, they analyzed the five most developed geo -enmentary proposals that are currently considered for use in polar regions and discovered that all the basic viability criteria failed and could do “severe environmental damage.”
His findings were published in the magazine Borders in science Mondays.
“A lot of false hope is created, which suggests that a small intervention will solve the problem,” said co -author Martin Sommerkorn from the World Wildfire Fund.
“There are really no shortcuts to fix climate change … Our research really shows that a long -term commitment is required for many, many years.”
We don’t know enough
“To the letter, many of these techniques make sense logically … but once you start thinking about it in a practical sense, it simply does not,” said Helen Amanda Fricker, professor of the Scripps Oceanography Institution in UC San Diego and one of the main authors of the study.
The problem, he said, is that most people do not realize the scale of some of the ice layers, “beyond human understanding.”
He focused on going through all the published literature on how to get basal water from under the glaciers to prevent them from moving so fast. She said the strategy had too many logistics problems.
The recent article was a group effort, but the researchers worked in specific sections, observing the most proposed geoengineering methods and evaluating their viability, effectiveness, cost, how they would govern and possible negative consequences.
“We did it very thoroughly and it took a long time and it was systematic,” said Fricker.
The paper co -author Julienne Stroeve of the University of Manitoba also said that even if the solutions work locally, although they would not still find them realistic, there would still be second -order consequences in other parts of the world.
“Even if you try to cool the Arctic helping the sea ice to last longer, then you are still heating the average latitudes or Ecuador,” Stroeve told CBC News.
“Then you are going to vigorize all your storm systems to bring that excess heat to the polar regions, because that is what our climatic patterns do.”
Projects such as solar geoyngeniery in the Arctic could be technically feasible, he said, but could have unwanted consequences, such as interrupting rain systems in the global south.
The document also mentions how to invest more resources in geo -en -geo -en -distracted research from what researchers say it is really necessary: a reduction in carbon emissions, quickly.
A distraction of decarbonization?
However, others do not agree.
Steve Desch is a professor of astrophysics at Arizona State University. He believes that addressing climate change will require multiple approaches, but is not surprised by the conclusions of the article.
“This is not the first time we find this type of attitude, and I think it is a very instinctive 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 branches and the technological viability of different things and current interested parties with the costs and benefits of the different options and then let everyone decide.”
Desch clarified that he does not believe that no one involved in the geo -ngealry would say that he should replace the decarbonization.
“We all agree that decarbonization is key,” he said. “But in the meantime, shouldn’t we explore these other options to prevent things from worsening too?”
Desch has seen progress in its own research, where it has been artificially thickening sea ice when pumping water on it. Although he says that more research is needed, he sees the potential when doing this to a part of the Arctic.
“We feel sure that any effect that would have pale compared to the complete loss of sea ice, to which we are heading.”
Governance challenges
Greg Henry has worked in the Arctic for more than 40 years. He has seen firsthand how fast the Arctic is changing.
“The speed of what is happening is the terrifying part, and I can understand why we are in the stage in which these scientists and engineers propose these projects on a planetary scale to buy us essentially,” he said.
Henry, a professor of geography emeritus at the University of British Columbia, says that he understands why people look for solutions, but still believes that geo -ngealry is too risky.
He believes that resources must focus on decarbonization.
“We really don’t have a complete understanding of what would happen if we throw a lot of particles into the stratosphere,” said Henry.
While it has been shown that certain great volcanic eruptions cool the planet, it says that it is difficult to replicate anything on that scale, and it is not clear how projects like this will affect indigenous communities in the Arctic.
“These projects are so huge and so expensive and so loaded with involuntary consequences, it seems almost nonsense to assume them.”
Henry points to China as an example of a country that progresses towards decarbonization and solar energy. He says it is for political reasons, to reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and easier to implement due to its current political system, but it shows that it is possible to change.
“It could be argued that our own most progressive government in Canada is not really jumping to the challenge here,” he said. “I personally believe [decarbonization] It should be one of the great projects of the liberal government. “
