GEOENGINEERINGScientists Call for ‘Major Initiative’ to Study Whether Geoengineering Should Be Used on Glaciers

A group of scientists has released a landmark report on glacial geoengineering—an emerging field studying whether technology could halt the melting of glaciers and ice sheets as climate change progresses.

The white paper represents the first public efforts by glaciologists to assess possible technological interventions that could help address catastrophic sea-level rise scenarios.

While it does not endorse any specific interventions, it calls for a “major initiative” in the next decades to research which, if any, interventions could and should be used.

“Everyone who is a scientist hopes that we don’t have to do this research,” said Douglas MacAyeal, a professor of geophysical sciences with the University of Chicago who has studied glaciers for nearly 50 years and is a co-author on the white paper. “But we also know that if we don’t think about it, we could be missing an opportunity to help the world in the future.”

The paper is the result of two recent conferences at the University of Chicago and Stanford University on geoengineering—catalyzed and encouraged by the newly formed Climate Systems Engineering initiative at UChicago, which seeks to understand the benefits, risks, and governance of technologies that might reduce the impacts of accumulated greenhouse gases.

Tipping Points
Scientists have documented major changes in every major glacier system worldwide. As climate change continues, these massive ice sheets will release more and more water, which will lead to rising global sea levels—the oceans have already risen by 8 to 9 inches since the late 1800s.

Most of the ice that would affect global sea levels is concentrated in a few areas in the Arctic and Antarctic. This has prompted speculation whether it would be possible to slow or halt this melting, such as by installing walls around ice sheets to insulate them from warming ocean water.

But any such intervention could have major consequences, ranging from costing large amounts of money for little effect to majorly disturbing Arctic ecosystems and livelihoods—and there are many questions to answer before any such effort could be undertaken.

“It will take 15 to 30 years for us to understand enough to recommend or rule out any of these interventions,” said co-author John Moore, a professor with the Arctic Center at the University of Lapland.

“Our argument is that we should start funding this research now, so that we aren’t making panicked decisions down the road when the water is already lapping at our ankles,” said MacAyeal.