These climate breakthroughs to save columns can have completely counterproductive results

Last year, the United Nations Propagate The average Earth temperature can rise more than 5.4 ° F (3 degrees Celsius) by 2100 if it does not diminish global emissions. This level of warming would cause irreversible catastrophic damage to ecosystems, which confirms the urgent need to slow climate change.

However, the amount of greenhouse gases that humans pump into the air continues Rise. Without adequate progress on the emissions front, some scientists have suggested another way: facing the global warming phenomenon through geological engineering. Many of these controversial solutions aim to mitigate Climate collapse in polar areasBut a review was published on Tuesday in The boundaries in science He concludes that even the most popular proposals are likely to cause more harm than benefit.

“I find that there was confusion between urgency and wheel,” Bin Orlov, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, told Gizmodo. “Although we are aware of the urgency of the work, this should not be an excuse for the incorrectly reviewed proposals move forward.”

The polar areas are under pressure

The polar regions of the Earth heat faster From the average global temperature. Experts expect that this will lead to severe and irreversible consequences at the regional and global levels, such as the collapse of the local ecosystem and the rise in sea level. Geological engineering supporters often cite that this is a driving force behind the efforts to implement such strategies in the Arctic and the Antarctic Pole, but none of them is supported by a strong test in the world.

For this review, an international team of researchers evaluated five geographical engineering concepts designed to slow the pace of ice melting in the polar areas. Ideas include Sprinkle the reflective molecules in the airUsing giant underwater curtains to protect ice shelves from warm water, Artificially Or enhance the reflection of marine ice, pump water from iceotilities, and add nutrients to the polar oceans to stimulate the vegetables that pick up carbon.

More problems than solutions

The researchers assessed the scope of each proposed solution for implementation, effectiveness, feasibility, negative consequences, cost and governance regarding their widespread deployment. According to their evaluation, all five ideas will lead to environmental damage such as disrupting habitats, migration methods, natural chemical cycle of the ocean, global climate patterns and more.

In addition, the authors estimate that each proposal will cost at least $ 10 billion to implement and maintain it. This is likely that this underestimation would be, referring to the hidden costs that will undoubtedly arise with the emergence of environmental and logistical consequences. Moreover, the polar regions lack the adequate rule of organizing these projects, which requires broad political negotiation and new frameworks widely before publication.

The researchers concluded that even if these tactics are offered some benefits, none of them will be able to expand quickly enough to address the climate crisis within the limited time available to do so.

“It is clear to us that the estimated methods are not possible, and that more research in these technologies will not be an effective use of limited time and resources,” the authors write, focusing on the importance of focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conducting basic research in polar areas.

Not every reform deserves risk

Orlove hopes that these results will encourage the scientific community and decision makers to scrutinize before investing time and money in polar geological engineering projects. He said: “One of the things that bother me is the claim that the climate change is so severe that we need to try all possible methods, and to prohibit any possible solution is a mistake.”

“There is a long history of medical research because certain experiments have not been done on living humans and not trying to intense treatments that seem immoral,” said Orlov. “But when it comes to the planet’s experience – and its immediate impact on people – this kind of awareness does not advance.”