The Arctic Is Running Out of Time

We all like sunny holidays at the beach and rain is good for the garden. Cold weather kills insect pests and wildfires germinate seeds in ancient forests. My British colleagues like to complain, but the seasons bring us pleasure.

Our relentless use of fossil fuels is changing all that – we’re experiencing extremes of heat, droughts, and wildfires, as well as extreme rain and floods.

For us in the UK, many of the worst impacts of climate change are perhaps a century away. But places like the Arctic are suffering right now and could face catastrophic changes within the next few decades.

Emissions reductions are needed to protect it, but it’s taking a long time. Yes, good things come to those who wait – but the Arctic isn’t waiting.

A dire outlook for the Arctic

The Arctic is warming three and a half times faster than anywhere else in the world. The World Meteorological Organization reported just a few weeks ago that, over the next five years, winter Arctic temperatures are expected to be 2.4°C above the average of the last 30 years.

Arctic sea ice, as a result, is melting at alarming rates, which is concerning for a number of reasons. It is, of course, a home – many people and ecosystems depend upon it. But it also helps stabilise the global climate; the bright white ice reflects sunlight and keeps temperatures down.

When the ice melts, the bright ice is replaced by dark ocean, which absorbs sunlight, warms the water, and hinders new ice from forming in the winter. It’s a doom loop – warming melts ice, melted ice exacerbates warming – with global consequences.

Changing this trajectory is urgent. The Arctic is racing ever faster towards dangerous, irreversible changes, and we’re just toddling behind.

Exploring additional measures

Ten years ago, we held a conference in Cambridge focused on “Solar Radiation Management” (SRM). At that time, it was just a backup plan, but we knew the Arctic was in danger from human-caused climate change and that progress on reducing emissions was frustratingly slow.

On the final day, protestors swarmed in, telling us our work was a distraction from the real need to get off fossil fuels.

A few months later, we and the protestors were both made happy: COP21 established the Paris Agreement, in which countries promised to do something about their emissions. (Bear in mind, this was 2015 – twenty years since we had started this process – but at least it was something.)

A decade later, however, Arctic sea ice extent is at its lowest on record and we’re burning more fossil fuels than ever – and not because SRM distracted anyone. What have we got so badly wrong?

Perhaps we have been too quick to put our trust in technologies that don’t exist yet: those nuclear power stations that will be ready by next century, that carbon capture and storage system that exists at a prototype scale and that is barely funded. We’ve assumed we can carry on as we are with those in place.

At the same time, we have been too slow to realise the urgency of the situation, and how emissions reductions, though essential, might not be sufficient alone. We have tiptoed around the idea of additional measures, including SRM, that could buy us more time. People are still telling us to wait, not get distracted, it’s too risky.

What of the risk of not doing anything? We don’t want to inadvertently make things worse, but at the same time we must recognise that “business as usual” would make things worse already. It’s time we listened to those who face losing everything – both regionally Indigenous people in the Arctic facing the loss of their livelihoods on ice and the Pacific Islanders who could lose their whole countries to the subsequent sea level rise.

Geoengineering and SRM are complex ideas with many uncertainties, and there’s value in treading carefully, to be sure. Untested technologies can be dangerous, and we need to put in place a strong plan for good governance and protection. We also need to test what could actually work, and what could lead to other issues.

But isn’t that what research is all about? Those calling to ban research in geoengineering and SRM seek to prevent us even asking the questions and understanding the real risks. I think that’s a real disservice to the Arctic and those who depend on it (which, as it happens, is all of us). If we can’t even reach the starting line, how could we ever hope to win the race?

Tackling the issues head-on

At our conference this week, ten years since our last in Cambridge, we’re hearing from people tackling the Arctic problem head-on.

Sea ice is melting too fast in the heat of the long Arctic summer – scientists in Australia are investigating ways to reflect more sunlight that may help cool it down. Maybe the ice could be thickened – researchers in the Netherlands are looking into it. How will these impact other people? Scientists in South Africa are getting the data.

I don’t know which – if any – of these ideas will be what the world needs. But I hope that, at another conference ten years on from this one, we’ll be able to say we put up a good fight. We’re in a race against a rapidly declining Arctic; we’ve got to give it all that we can.