Protect the Arctic from “dangerous” climate engineering, warn scientists

Plans to combat climate change by manipulating the Arctic and Antarctic environment are dangerous, unlikely to work and could be abducted from the need to dig fossil fuels, dozens of polar scientists warn.

These polar “geo -engineering” techniques aim to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thickening sea ice or to release small, reflecting particles into the atmosphere.

They gained attention as potential future tools to combat global warming, along with cutting carbon emissions.

But more than 40 researchers say they could bring “severe environmental damage” and call on the sides to simply focus on reaching a net zero, the only established way to limit global warming.

Geoengineering – deliberate intervention in the Earth’s climate system to counteract the impact of global warming – is one of the most reflective areas of climate research.

Some species are widely accepted – Removal of carbon dioxide on the planet From the atmosphere by planting trees or using machines, for example, parts of net zero effort are recognized.

Net zero It means balancing the amount of warming planets “greenhouse” gases produced by human activities, with the amount actively removed from the atmosphere.

But some more radical geo -aging ideas, such as the reflection of sunlight, “deal with the symptoms of climate change, not the reasons,” said lead author Martin Seage, a professor of geologists at the University of Exeter.

For supporters it is worth exploring the techniques that could help quickly raise the rise in temperatures that are Already carry severe effects on people and ecosystems around the worldS

But for the opponents, the risks are just too big – especially for the fragile polar regions, for which it remains very unknown.

The scientists behind the new rating, published in the magazine Frontiers in Science, have reviewed the evidence of five of the most widely discussed ideas for geo -engineering of polar geoengineering.

Everyone does not meet the basic criteria for their feasibility and potential environmental risks, they say.

One such proposal is the launch of small, reflecting particles called aerosols high in the atmosphere to cool the planet.

This often attracts attention among Online Conspiracy Theoristswhich is falsely claiming that the condensation paths in the sky-water vapor created by the Jet Engines aircraft is evidence of a sinister large-scale geo-engineering today.

But many scientists have more unhappy concerns, including interruption of meteorological models around the world.

With these potential strokes, this also raises the question of who decides to use it-especially in the Arct and Antarctica, where government is not simple.

If one country is going to deploy geoengineering against the wishes of the other, it can “increase geopolitical tensions in the polar regions,” according to Dr. Valerie Mason-Delmot, a senior scientist at the University of Paris in France.

Another fear is that while some of the ideas may be theoretically possible, huge costs and scaling time means that they are extremely unlikely to make a change, according to the review.

One idea BBC News recently viewed a plan Pump seawater over the surface of Arctic sea ice In the winter, to thicken it, giving the ice a greater chance of surviving in the summer.

But to cover 10% of the Arctic, it can require about 10 million seawater pumps, one estimate implies.

A more fundamental concern is that these types of projects could create the illusion of an alternative to reducing human gases emissions to heat the planet.

“If they are promoted … then they are scattering, because for some people they will be a solution to the climate crisis that does not require decarbonisation,” said Prof. Zigert.

“Of course, this would not be true, so we believe that they can be potentially harmful.”

Even supporters of geo -agriculture research agree that at best it is a supplement to Net Zero, not a replacement.

“The need to reduce emissions comes first … Almost everything we do is useless without it,” according to D -R, Sean Fitzgerald, director of the University of Cambridge’s Climate Repair Center, which is involved in some of the underlined projects.

The evaluation gives rise to “very valid concerns” about some of the ideas, but they must be balanced against the risks of the “dangerous condition of the climate,” he argued.

Like many other supporters of geo -engineering research, D -R Fitzgerald still does not support it on a large scale and admitted that the more current investigation can really find that the ideas are “bonkers”.

But he claims that more research will allow the public to make “more informed decisions” on whether they can help or impede in the fight against climate change.

A recently announced agency supported by the United Kingdom Government Nearly £ 60 million in funding for such researchAlthough the government says there are no plans to unfold them.

But the authors of the new assessment consider these projects as so unrealistic that the efforts will be better focused on decarbonisation and polar studies.

“There are some basic domestic truths that do not need a lot of research to conclude that they are not really viable,” Prof. Sigert argues.

A spokesman for the UK government said: “It is our priority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from human activities and to adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change.”