Why Geoengineering Might Be a No-Go: Insights from Recent Studies – The Engineer

Geoengineering in the Polar Regions: A Critical Look

Recent research has sparked debate about geoengineering techniques intended to combat climate change, particularly in polar areas. A study published in Frontiers in Science examined five methods aimed at slowing the warming of ice caps and surrounding seas. However, the findings raise more questions than they answer.

The lead author, Professor Martin Siegert from Exeter University, emphasized that none of these techniques can be realistically implemented at the scale needed. He argued that these well-meaning ideas could actually harm polar regions and contradict broader climate goals, such as achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

The Five Techniques Examined

The study analyzed the following geoengineering strategies:

1. Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI): A method to reflect sunlight back into space.
2. Sea Curtains/Walls: Structures designed to prevent warm water from reaching ice shelves.
3. Sea Ice Management: Techniques to artificially thicken sea ice.
4. Subglacial Water Removal: Aiming to slow down the flow of ice sheets.
5. Ocean Fertilization: Encouraging phytoplankton growth to absorb carbon dioxide.

Each technique was evaluated for its feasibility, effectiveness, costs, and potential risks. The researchers also discussed moral hazards, where reliance on geoengineering could deter people from reducing carbon emissions.

Concerns About Feasibility

The study concluded that large-scale geoengineering for polar regions is not practical. The researchers voiced concerns about resources being diverted from proven methods of decarbonization. Professor Siegert noted the urgency, stating, “Mid-century is approaching, and we can’t afford to waste time on speculative projects.”

Despite these alarms, the topic of geoengineering remains controversial. Some scientists believe further research is essential. Professor Matthew Watson from Bristol University pointed out that terms like “safeguarding” in the study’s title may misrepresent the current situation. Ice loss is already a looming threat, and he argued that innovation in geoengineering could be less expensive than traditional mitigation strategies.

Dr. Shaun Fitzgerald, from Cambridge University’s Centre for Climate Repair, echoed these sentiments. He emphasized that significant environmental damage is already occurring, whether geoengineering is pursued or not. Instead of dismissing geoengineering, he suggested that we need to weigh the risks of exploring it against the risks of inaction.

The Bigger Picture

Historical context adds depth to this debate. Climate engineering discussions gained traction in the 1970s, but skepticism has always existed, primarily due to unpredictable outcomes. Today, as climate change impacts worsen, the urgency to explore all options—including geoengineering—grows.

A recent survey indicated that 68% of scientists support at least limited research into geoengineering methods, suggesting there is a hunger for solutions beyond traditional approaches.

In the end, the conversation around geoengineering will likely continue as we face unprecedented environmental challenges. Balancing immediate actions with long-term solutions remains crucial for our planet’s future.

For more detailed insights, refer to the original study published in Frontiers in Science here.

Source link

Geoengineering,Polar,Decarbonisation