Leading Experts Reject Geoengineering as Climate Solution

A comprehensive study by a team of leading ice and climate researchers has concluded that current geoengineering concepts are unlikely to provide effective solutions to climate change. The peer-reviewed research, published on March 15, 2023, highlights that many proposed interventions, such as atmospheric particle dispersion and ice sheet refreezing, could lead to significant unintended consequences.

The researchers assessed several speculative geoengineering ideas that have gained attention through public relations campaigns. These concepts include spreading reflective particles over newly formed sea ice to enhance its growth, constructing large ocean-bottom barriers to divert warmer water from ice shelves, and injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere to dim sunlight. The findings indicate that these approaches could disrupt crucial regional weather patterns and ocean ecosystems, potentially harming marine life from small krill to large whales.

Martin Siegert, a glaciologist at the University of Exeter and lead author of the study, emphasized the importance of a scientific perspective on these geoengineering proposals. The paper features contributions from 40 experts in disciplines such as oceanography, marine biology, glaciology, and atmospheric science. “We aimed to counter the promotional narrative around geoengineering with evidence that illustrates the complexity and potential dangers of these interventions,” Siegert stated.

The study raises critical concerns about the viability of geoengineering as a solution to climate change. Researchers found that most ideas do not address the core issue: greenhouse gas emissions. “Many geoengineering concepts are merely climate Band-Aids,” Siegert remarked, stressing that they only tackle symptoms rather than the root cause.

To evaluate five specific geoengineering proposals, the team developed a set of questions applicable to similar initiatives worldwide. They discovered that the logistical challenges and financial costs—potentially reaching into the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars—make these ideas impractical. Critical criteria included assessing whether the proposed methods would work in practice and understanding the risks, including unforeseen side effects.

The research also highlighted the necessity of realistic timelines for any geoengineering projects. Plans must scale up effectively in the coming decades to meet global climate targets. Siegert cautioned against fostering unrealistic optimism regarding geoengineering’s potential to mitigate climate change without significant reductions in carbon emissions.

International treaties, particularly in sensitive regions like Antarctica, further complicate large-scale geoengineering interventions, making them difficult, if not impossible, to implement. James Kirkham, a co-author and chief science advisor for a coalition of over 20 countries, remarked that a minority of advocates have been promoting these ideas despite the consensus among scientists about their feasibility.

The assessment revealed that “no current geoengineering idea passes an objective and comprehensive test regarding its use in the coming decades,” Kirkham stated. He noted that while many geoengineering proposals have historically been dismissed by the mainstream climate science community, there has been a surge in funding and media attention in recent years.

This growing interest has raised alarm among climate scientists, particularly as some geoengineering concepts gain traction among policymakers. Presentations promoting these ideas have sometimes suggested they have widespread support within the scientific community, despite substantial skepticism among researchers.

Kirkham expressed concern over the portrayal of these fringe concepts as viable solutions, saying, “They were pitching these ideas as if they had the backing of the entire research community.” He emphasized the need for transparency and realistic assessments of geoengineering initiatives to ensure that public understanding does not become distorted by overly optimistic portrayals.

The findings of this study serve as a poignant reminder that while innovative approaches to combat climate change are essential, the emphasis must remain on reducing carbon emissions as the most effective and necessary solution.

This article originally appeared in Inside Climate News.