Protect Arctic From 'Dangerous' Climate Engineering, Scientists Warn 49
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
they did an entire episode on how geoengineering (giant ice cube) is just a political band aid over dealing with the real issue. They were making fun of you
Thanks what a good educational video [youtube.com]. Normally I wouldn't think it would be that valuable, but it probably gives a better understanding of the situation than the first three people to comment on this fine article have.
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?
We need every solution (Score:2)
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:2)
Mostly agree, but as you say some nuance
1. Primary safety increase for naval reactors is their small size, not weapon grade fuel.
absolutely, but it's the highly enriched fuel which makes it easy to make the reactor smaller. It means you get much more fission, more easily from the same amount of Uranium and need less of other components such as moderators.
2. We burned an awful lot of weapon grade uranium, mostly from Russia, in our power plants. Diluted it down first, of course.
Diluted weapons grade fuel is no longer weapons grade. As long as you mixed it reasonably carefully, you are going to have to go through the whole, hugely difficult, enrichment process to get back to something you could use in a nuclear device
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, the biggest cargo ships these days, the ones you'd want nuclear powered first, would easily have the volume/space necessary for a nuclear power plant once you remove the fuel bunkers.
Even the bigger reactors from using only mildly enriched uranium.
Personally, I don't think it's that big of an issue.
Re: (Score:1)
absolutely, but it's the highly enriched fuel which makes it easy to make the reactor smaller. It means you get much more fission, more easily from the same amount of Uranium and need less of other components such as moderators.
While that makes things easier it is not required.
A military vessel is not built like a civilian vessel, as if that isn't obvious but it is important. A military vessel will be expected to absorb fire from powerful weapons and so the reactor will be behind layers of armor, that armor will impede refueling and so there is a need for highly refined fuel. The highly refined fuel offers other advantages, like being able to change power output quickly, which a civilian ship would not likely need to do. So the
Re: (Score:1)
Naval nuclear reactors are fundamentally different from civilian.
Those two terms are not mutually exclusive and so it doesn't make sense to make that distinction.
The key difference being that they can and do use weapons grade enriched uranium.
They can, they do, but it is not required. See the NS Savannah as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's a few other examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
We've run naval nuclear reactors under civilian rules, as in using low enriched fuel, before so I expect we can do it again. Not only do it again but with greater safety, reduced crew requirements, lower cost, and other improvements.
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 it to make a bomb.
Once t
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
Re:We need every solution (Score:4, Insightful)
So you hope that people will "naturally" move over to renewable energy, as it's becoming cheaper.
Is it still cheaper after the government bans affordable EVs? What about when the government revokes permits for wind farms? While simultaneously subsidizing fossil fuel extraction?
You can't just ignore government and hope magically everything works out. Sometimes you have to fix government.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree that fixing government to see renewables and the whole transformation of industry that goes with them as strategic is critical. I wasn't trying to, and in fact didn't say anything that disagrees with that.
I'm saying that once you have a government that is willing to fix things, the right way to do it is to get the cheap renewable energy in place first, together with those places that are willing to and happy to work with it. Useful, strategically supported byproducts come second together wit
Re: (Score:2)
Have you somehow missed that the geoengineering plans all were missing feasibility? The only reason these project are proposed is to delay the demise of those responsible for the current mess. These "plans" are nothing but misdirection.
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:1)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This statement shows just one thing: You have no clue. We are currently moving into the area where human civilization becomes less and less likely to survive. And do you see any decisive action? I do not. Instead a lot of lying and a deep desire for short-term profits are what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot fix this. There is no "plan B".
Re: (Score:2)
Natural climate changes are cyclical and happen over 10'000...1'000'000 years. This one is NOT cyclical and happens over 200 years or so. There is no way for most of nature to adapt to a change this fast.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Thats like medical doctors (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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."
To make the metaphor accurate, instead of Narcan the doctor would be recommending a new novelty drug whose results are untested in the human body, and for which no antidote is known.
Re: Thats like medical doctors (Score:1)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (Score:1)
They are missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
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:3)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You can spin your wheels looking for an alternative to an alternative, or you can actually fix the problem.
That is an excellent idea.
As we speak, wind farm construction is being halted by the DoE for political reasons.
The White House laid out concerns on the windmills killing or harming marine life and birds that fly over the sea. While there's been bullshit comments on how buildings and domestic cats kill more birds I don't see many buildings or cats out at sea where they can harm rare, large, predatory birds like eagles and condors. Then is the concern that offshore windmills pose to safety of navigation and national security. Offshore windmills could pose hazard to ships carrying cargo, an
Re: (Score:2)
Needing special filters for air intakes due to spraying all kinds of particulates into the atmosphere.
Needing special breathing masks / harnesses for anyone working outside, (and eventually inside), due to the same particulates. (Now they can finally charge people to breathe! WE DID IT FOLKS!)
Needing new cancer treatments for the long-term damage those par
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have proven solutions, that's the easy part. Now go convince 8 billion people to adopt them.
Your view is US-centric (so 4% of the Earth population) but let's run with it. Donald Trump is in power because he has been elected, he has been elected because he has the support of the general population, and he did that by openly not giving a shit about climate change, against a now clear scientific consensus. It is even taught at school. People simply prioritize their comfort over greenhouse gases, and th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The argument made in the summary, "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," seems to be as much religion as science. I've never seen any hard evidence that it actually happens. The opposite seems to be just as common, people saying, "If you really believed climate change is that bad, you would support geoengineering, so obviously you don't really believe in it."
If someone is going to argue
Cutting carbon emissions it impossible (Score:1)
There is no path to cutting carbon emissions that doesn't result in widespread misery and death for human beings around the world.
We MUST use cloud-making technologies (high energy laser or whatever) or other available weather modification techniques to increase global cloud cover if we want to reduce avg temperatures.
CUTTING CARBON EMISSIONS WILL ACHIEVE NOTHING BUT MISERY -- THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IT WILL REDUCE AVG TEMPERATURES!!!
Re: (Score:2)
You lie. Then you lie louder. What is that supposed to accomplish? There is not a single credible geoengineering plan and your "plan" is just as fucked as all the others are.