Prof Martin Siegert (University of Exeter); Dr Sammie Buzzard (University of Northumbria); Dr Heïdi Sevestre (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Council); Prof Michael Bentley (Durham University); Prof Helen Amanda Fricker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego/ Swansea University); Dr Sian Henley (University of Edinburgh); Dr Robert Larter (British Antarctic Survey)                            RAT0006

Written evidence submitted by Prof Martin Siegert (University of Exeter); Dr Sammie Buzzard (University of Northumbria); Dr Heïdi Sevestre (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Council); Prof Michael Bentley (Durham University); Prof Helen Amanda Fricker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego/ Swansea University); Dr Sian Henley (University of Edinburgh); Dr Robert Larter (British Antarctic Survey)

Dear Chair,

Please find below our evidence in relation to the enquiry on ‘The UK and the Antarctic Environment’.

We welcome the opportunity that re-opening the enquiry has brought as since the initial call for evidence there has been a great deal of attention given to the idea of ‘geoengineering’, the large-scale manipulation of Earth systems to combat climate change. Several proposed geoengineering ideas are directly related to Antarctica and questions 10-12 on Antarctic Governance posed in the Call for Evidence for this enquiry.

We write to you to present our concerns about these issues and also to highlight the need for anticipatory governance in this area. As a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty the UK is in a position to ensure that the Antarctic Treaty System is prepared to be able to deal with potential geoengineering schemes.

Yours Faithfully,

Prof Martin Siegert (University of Exeter)

Dr Sammie Buzzard (University of Northumbria)

Dr Heïdi Sevestre (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Council)

Prof Michael Bentley (Durham University)

Prof Helen Amanda Fricker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego/ Swansea University)

Dr Sian Henley (University of Edinburgh)

Dr Robert Larter (British Antarctic Survey)

Protecting Antarctica from dangerous geoengineering

Written evidence submitted to the Environmental Audit Sub-Committee on Polar Research's inquiry into The UK and the Antarctic Environment by Prof Martin Siegert (University of Exeter), Dr Sammie Buzzard (University of Northumbria), Dr Heïdi Sevestre (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Arctic Council), Prof Michael Bentley (Durham University), Prof Helen Amanda Fricker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego/ Swansea University), Dr Sian Henley (University of Edinburgh), Dr Robert Larter (British Antarctic Survey).

Burning fossil fuels is heating the world at an alarming rate. The polar regions are warming much faster than the rest of the planet; about three times faster in the Arctic and about twice as fast in the Antarctic. When polar ice disappears it leads to more energy being absorbed from the sun because a white reflective surface is replaced by a dark surface, whether on the ocean or land. Thawing permafrost emits methane, which is one of the most potent greenhouse gases. These are unwanted feedback loops that accelerate warming. Melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets also drives global sea level rise. In the past, the polar regions have acted to cool the planet, but if the world continues to burn fossil fuels the polar regions could add greatly to global warming and sea level rise. The global peril from heating the polar regions and the significant risk of crossing climate tipping points has led some to consider intervening directly to slow, or even reverse, these changes. However, such ‘geoengineering’ ideas offer a false hope that humans can apply technological solutions to control or “fix” polar change.

Several ideas have been put forward that relate to Antarctica. One idea is to pump ocean water from beneath floating sea ice up onto the ice surface, where it will freeze and thicken the ice, thus slowing the declines in sea ice currently being observed. Another would install vast submarine curtains to halt the flow of deep warm ocean water to the margins of the Antarctic ice sheet, thus slowing the melting of these huge areas of ice and the resultant sea level rise. A third idea is to drill to the base of the ice sheets, pump away the water that lubricates the base of the ice and thus slow the flow of ice to the ocean.

In 2024 a group of 42 international scientists and polar experts collaborated on a publication [1] to highlight the dangers to the polar regions associated with geoengineering. Here we summarise why none of these ideas are practical, for at least five reasons.

First, to get ahead of climate change and stop the world’s vulnerable regions crossing major climate tipping points, any measures would have to be deployed over the next few decades, and over a huge geographical area. We do not have the capability to deploy at that speed or scale. For sea ice thickening, millions of pumps[2] would likely be needed, taking hundreds to thousands of years to deploy. They would require extensive resources and distributed power sources, and would change the salinity of the sea ice and ocean below with uncertain impact on ocean circulation. To restrict ocean heat from melting just the most vulnerable part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet margin, a subsea barrier 80 km in length would be needed.  And for ice-sheet-flow reductions, dozens of holes would need to be drilled through 2-4 km of ice. Notable previous drilling attempts in Antarctica have been unsuccessful, such as the UK-led Lake Ellsworth project in 2012. The holes would be constantly refreezing and closing up. There would be a huge energy demand in pumping water upwards over hundreds of metres.

Second, even if it were theoretically possible, deploying any engineering in harsh and remote polar environments would be difficult, and, during storms and the harsh polar winter, it would be impossible. For example, the Southern Ocean is, by some measures, the stormiest ocean in the world. Few ships can work there because of the risk of becoming trapped in the ice. The target sites are about as remote as it gets on Earth – many days away from any port or infrastructure.

Third, intervening in the environment of either pole would harm the natural and biological systems. For example, installing submarine curtains would stop the flow of water, affecting the movement of animals, their food and life-giving nutrients to and from the Southern Ocean. It could entangle and drown seals and whales hunting deep below the surface. It would be very unlikely to be permitted under the Antarctic Treaty System[3]. Governance risks in the debate around geoengineering have thus far been neglected or understated, with research suggesting that the effect on authority, sovereignty and security (all contentious areas of Antarctic geopolitics) of geoengineering projects could make the Antarctic ‘the scene or object of international discord’[4],which the Antarctic Treaty specifically aims to avoid. In the Arctic, on the other hand, any interventions would come up against national sovereignty and could lead to conflict between nations who support geoengineering and those who do not.

Fourth, the likely costs of geoengineering in the polar regions are astronomical, comparable to some of the world’s largest construction projects. As polar scientists, we know from experience that even limited scientific deployments in the Arctic and Antarctic are highly challenging, expensive and prone to failure. The suggested 80 km ‘seabed curtain’ to defend Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers alone is estimated to require $80 bn[5],with annual maintenance costs also estimated to be over $1 bn. Even if this figure is not an underestimate then presumably similar amounts would be needed for each additional vulnerable glacier system such as Totten Glacier in East Antarctica. There is no international agreement likely to fund geoengineering at such a scale. Funds would be much better spent on decarbonisation and efforts to adapt to climate change.

Fifth, intervening would itself cause more carbon emissions and pollution in the Polar Regions. For example, drilling dozens of holes through the 2-4 km thick Antarctic Ice Sheet would need thousands of barrels of kerosene as fuel each year. Every barrel of fuel used in Antarctica needs up to twelve barrels of aviation fuel to get it to where it is used. As well as producing greenhouse gases, burning kerosene in Antarctica releases black carbon that will darken the ice surface and drive further melting. Renewable energy options are not deployable at scale yet in the polar regions.

Worryingly, in some minds, the prospect of geoengineering presents a justification to keep burning fossil fuels. This is an illusion. Unless fossil-fuel emissions are reduced to net zero, we will have to continue to step up the geoengineering solutions forever. This is a requirement that simply cannot be met.

Polar geoengineering would damage pristine natural environments and distract us from what we actually must do – stop burning fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by mid-century at the latest. This is the best, safest, most practical and highest value-for-money option to minimise the peak level of global warming. It is also the best way to preserve as much of Earth’s polar environments as possible, to the benefit of humankind all over the world.

As a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty the UK are in a position to drive anticipatory governance for geoengineering. It is essential to improve environmental protection in Antarctica and with these interventions in mind to strengthen the Antarctic Treaty System to help ensure that Antarctica remains peaceful and cooperative.

[1] Siegert, Martin & Sevestre, Heïdi & Bentley, Michael et al., (2024). Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.13179.94246, submitted to Frontiers in Science.

[2] Arctic sea ice area in winter is 14 million km2. Assuming a device works over 1km2, covering the Arctic would need 14 million of them. Roll out of these at a rate of 10,000 per year would need 1400 years.

[3] We note that the Committee for Environmental Protection (which provides advice to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting on the implementation of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty) has yet to see a Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for a geoengineering project, which would be necessary for a permit to be awarded.

[4] Patrick Flamm, Akiho Shibata, ‘Ice sheet conservation’ and international discord: governing (potential) glacial geoengineering in Antarctica, International Affairs, 2024;, iiae281, https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiae281

[5] Keefer, B. et al., Feasibility of ice sheet conservation using seabed anchored curtains, PNAS Nexus, Volume 2, Issue 3, March 2023, pgad053, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad053 cite ~$1bn per kilometre, plus $1-2bn per year maintenance.

December 2024