Arctic protection from “dangerous” climate engineering, scientists warn

Dozens of poorest scientists have warned that anti -climate change plans by manipulating the North Pole and the Southern Pole are dangerous, and it is unlikely to work and can pay attention to the need to get rid of fossil fuels.

The polar “geological engineering” techniques aims to cool the planet in unconventional ways, such as artificially thick ice or firing small molecules in the atmosphere.

They have gained attention as possible future tools to combat global warming, as well as cutting carbon emissions.

But more than 40 researchers say they can “severe environmental damage” and urge countries to simply focus on zero zero, which is the only way to reduce global warming.

Geological engineering – which deliberately interferes with the climate system on Earth to counter the effects of global warming – is one of the most controversial areas of climate research.

Some species are widely acceptable – Remove the carbon dioxide that is getting more planet From the atmosphere by planting trees or using machines, for example, parts of clear efforts are identified.

Zero It means achieving a balance between the amount of “greenhouse” gases aimed at the planet produced by human activities with the quantity that is removed actively from the atmosphere.

An author of Martin Sejart, a professor of earthly science at the University of Exter, said that some of the most radical ideas of geological engineering, such as the reflection of sunlight “deal with symptoms of climate change instead of causes.”

For supporters, it is worth exploring technologies that can help curb high temperatures, which are It has already achieved severe effects of people and ecosystems around the world.

But for opponents, the risks are very simply – especially for fragile polar areas, which are still unknown.

Scientists have reviewed the new evaluation, published in the Frontiers Journal of Science, has reviewed the evidence of five of the largest polar geological engineering ideas that were widely discussed.

They say that everyone fails to meet the basic standards of their potential and environmental risks.

One of these suggestions is to launch small, reflective molecules called high atmosphere in the air to cool the planet.

This often attracts attention between Online conspiracy theoristWho falsely claim that the throat paths in the sky-the water vapor that was created from aircraft aircraft engines-is evidence of widespread evil geological engineering today.

But many scientists have more legitimate concerns, including disrupting weather patterns around the world.

With these possible effects, this also raises the issue of those who decide to use-especially in the Arctic and the Antarctic Pole, where the governance is not clear.

If there is a country that publishes geological engineering against the desires of others, it may “increase geopolitical tensions in polar regions,” according to Dr. Valery Mason Delmot, the chief scientist at the University of Paris Sakli in France.

Another fear is that although some ideas may be in theory, the tremendous costs and time to expand their scope mean that they are unlikely to make a difference, according to the review.

One of the ideas that BBC recently looked at a plan for Sea water pump over the surface of the marine ice into the Arctic In winter to intensify it, giving the ice a better chance to survive in the summer.

But to cover 10 % of the Arctic, it may require about 10 million sea water pump, one estimates.

One of the most important concerns is that these types of projects can create an alternative to cutting human emissions of gases that aim to the planet.

“If they are promoted … it is a distraction because some people will be a solution to the climate crisis that does not require carbon removal,” said Professor Seraft.

“Of course, this will not be true and that’s why we believe it can be harmful.”

Even supporters of geological engineering research agree that, at best, an attachment to Net Zero, not an alternative.

“The need to reduce emissions comes first … Anything we do almost is not glorified without it,” according to Dr. Shun Fitzgerald, Director of the Climate Reform Center at Cambridge University, who participated in some of the projects that were highlighted.

The evaluation raises “very valid concerns” about some ideas, but they need a risk balance of “risk -fraught condition,” he said.

Like many supporters of geological engineering research, Dr. Fitzgerald does not support its publication on a large scale, and he admitted that more investigation may find that ideas are “bonker”.

But he said more research will allow society to make “more enlightened decisions” about whether they can help or hinder climate change.

A government -backed agency in the United Kingdom recently announced an agency Almost 60 million pounds of funding for such researchAlthough the government says it does not have plans to publish it.

But the new evaluation authors view these projects as so unrealistic that efforts will be better directed towards carbon removal and polar research.

“There are some basic home facts that do not need a lot of research to find a conclusion that they are not really viable,” said Professor Siera.