Feed: Slashdot
Feed Link: https://slashdot.org/
---

Title: Protect Arctic From 'Dangerous' Climate Engineering, Scientists Warn

Link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/10/0...

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.

---
VRSS v2.1.180528