Reflections on Arctic Circle 2019 Assembly and Leslie Field's Ice911 Geoengineering Idea to Cool the Arctic With Hollow Silicate Beads

It was great to read Mia Bennett, of the University of Hong Kong's Department of Geography and School of Modern Languages & Cultures, report on power brokers' ideas in Arctic Circle 2019 Assembly October 10 - 13 in Reykjavík. Bennett's Cryopolitics article "Welcome to the geoengineered Arctic" had informed perspective and helpful insights. She wrote, "Attending most of the Arctic Circle’s meetings over the past seven years has given me some perspective as to how the conversation about the region’s future has evolved over the better part of a decade. Over the years, everyone from former President of Iceland Olafur Ragnar Grímsson to former United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon and now, this year, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, has said something to the effect that the 'Arctic is at the front lines of climate change.'” She added "geoengineering technologies like glass microbeads [from Ice911] and carbon capture offer more opportunities to invest. After all, there’s little money to be made in slowing down or cutting consumption and greenhouse emissions, which, let’s face it, are never going to be burning topics for plenary discussion."  Her overall article showed why it would be wiser to focus on these topics than capitalist investment strategies, and the sooner the better. Bennett's humanity brought clarity, and showed the need for Extinction Rebellion's third demand noted below of a UK "Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice."

I wrote about Ice911 in May 2019 and reminded readers of Clive Hamilton's March 10, 2015 Scientific American article about aerial sulfate spraying, another form of geoengineering, "Yet every [National Research Council] scientist, including the council authors, is convinced that if albedo modification is implemented and not followed by a program of global emission reductions, then we are almost certainly finished. Sulfate spraying without a change in the political system would make the situation worse." Similarly, I wrote on this blog about President Niinistö of Finland's statement in a joint press conference with President Trump, August 28, 2017, “If we lose the Arctic, we lose the globe.”

Eric Niiler of wired.com had good timing in his October 18, 2019 article "Can Tiny Glass Beads Keep Arctic Ice From Melting? Maaaybe,"  Niiler wrote "A group of Bay Area scientists and engineers say they have just such a solution: A thin layer of tiny glass beads that, when spread across the ice, would boost its surface reflectivity, start a slight Arctic cooling trend, and overall create more ice [ . . . .] Field says geoengineering is not a replacement for cutting back on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Rather, she sees it as a way for nations to buy time to make bigger economic shifts. [. . . .]  Because each one is 35 micrometers in diameter, they are too big to make it past the respiratory tract filters of mammals, according to Ice911. The organization tested the material on minnows and birds with no ill effects, according to data provided in its research paper, but still needs to evaluate how it would affect marine mammals. [ . . . .]" The article notes the hollow glass bead plan, if used, may risk affecting weather in other areas.

Niiler added "Other scientists who have looked at the team’s proposal remain skeptical. Chad Thackeray, a climate scientist at UCLA, says that even with this intervention the Arctic will continue to warm, because planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions aren’t slowing down. Thackeray says the scale and cost of an operation to offset increasing Arctic temperatures would be massive."

In a previous post I cited Corey Gabriel, Executive Director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Masters of Advanced Studies in Climate Science and Policy (MAS CSP): "[ . . . .]  In the event that geoengineering did cause disparate regional impacts, a regulatory scheme would need to develop that would contain enforceable compensation mechanisms to compensate those who suffer any damages.  Also, I think it’s important to note the relevant comparison to make in the context of whether or not to deploy geoengineering in the future is a comparison between the damages in a world with global warming and geoengineering vs. the damages in a warmer world without geoengineering.  An extra 0.5C-0.75C of warming, on top of, say 2.5C above preindustrial, would likely be very problematic.  Potentially a great deal more problematic than whatever disparate impacts a geoengineering regime would bring about."

World history shows who gets to decide can be as important as what is decided.  Extinction Rebellion's "Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice" would help each government maintain order as food prices skyrocket and climate danger increases.

Extinction Rebellion's three demands are therefore rising in importance:

Tell the Truth
"Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change."

Act Now
"Government must act now to halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025."

Beyond Politics
"Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice."