Researchers say glacial geoengineering is a potential salvation for sea level rise

Researchers are considering glacial geoengineering as a potential solution to combat sea-level rise caused by climate change. This comes in response to predictions that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may have already surpassed tipping points, posing a significant threat to coastal cities. A recent white paper, the result of several workshops and town halls held over 10 months, suggests exploring innovative plans such as constructing flexible barriers around vulnerable ice sheets or drilling into them to slow their sliding into the sea. This is prepared by SSP.

However, these ideas have sparked controversy among glaciologists. Some view them as exorbitantly expensive, logistically challenging, and a diversion from the primary focus of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns about these untested approaches have led to disagreements within the scientific community, with some predicting a forthcoming "civil war."

Without intervention, it is projected that coastal cities will face approximately one meter of sea-level rise by 2100. Proponents of glacial geoengineering argue that it would be more cost-effective to invest in research aimed at addressing sea-level rise at its source, rather than spending billions on safeguarding cities. Glaciologist John Moore from the University of Lapland highlights the urgency and the need to explore unconventional alternatives.

One concept discussed in the white paper involves constructing buoyant "curtains" moored to the seabed beyond the edge of ice shelves and glaciers. These curtains would obstruct warm water currents that erode the ice sheets from beneath, mitigating glacial melting. The report suggests that modeled studies on partial curtain heights near the western coast of Antarctica show a potential tenfold reduction in glacial melting. Another proposed intervention is drilling holes into the ice sheets and pumping out water or applying heat to slow down their slippage.

Undoubtedly, such large-scale engineering endeavors would be among the most costly and complex undertakings in history. Faced with an estimated price tag of $88 billion for an 80-kilometer curtain installation in Antarctica, securing international political support poses an additional challenge.

Glaciologists like Twila Moon highlight numerous practical obstacles, including the requirement for icebreakers, intricate shipping and supply chains, and a significant workforce to construct and maintain the structures in incredibly challenging ocean conditions. Additionally, potential unintended consequences, such as disruptions to ocean circulation patterns and harm to wildlife, need to be thoroughly considered. Furthermore, the efficacy of these interventions would take decades to assess.

Even supposing the engineering and logistics can be overcome, the question of whether glacial geoengineering should be pursued remains highly debated. Detractors argue that committing resources to such endeavors might diminish incentives for reducing carbon emissions. While the white paper supports research rather than intervention, urging a serious examination of these methods, some glaciologists view any involvement in glacial geoengineering research as tacit support for the practice itself.

Discussions surrounding glacial geoengineering have elicited mixed reactions. Some glaciologists adamantly oppose the concept, while others are open to research funding for purely theoretical investigations. Critics question the distinction between endorsing research and endorsing the practice. With the increasing momentum behind solar geoengineering research, expert opinions suggest a growing acceptance of glacial geoengineering research in the scientific community.