STIA 3005 Arctic Geoengineering Module

Eight Arctic Council Nations

1. Canada

2. Denmark

3. Finland

4. Iceland

5. Norway

6. Russia

7. Sweden

8. USA

Arctic Permanent Participants

1. Aleut International Association

2. Arctic Athabaskan Council

3. Gwich’in Councnil International

4. Inuit Circumpolar Council

5. Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North

6. Sami Council

Arctic Council Limitations

1. Limited Legal Authority

   1. No ability to make binding international treaties; it’s a forum, not a treaty-based organization. (Dr. Mathis was representative, he said think about how unimportant the council is to have him as a rep.)

2. Exclusion of Security and Military Issues

   1. Explicitly excludes military and security matters, limited to science.

3. Non-Inclusion of Key Stakeholders

   1. Indigenous peoples/observer states have a voice, but not voting rights

4. Consensus-Based Decision-Making

   1. Unanimity requirement slows progress, prevents bold action. Political differences (US Russia primarily) leads to gridlock.

5. Limited Scope of Jurisdiction

   1. Arctic Council focuses on env. and sustainable development issues but lacks jurisdiction over regulation of commercial shipping, etc.

6. Resource and Funding Constraints

   1. xxxx

7. Geopolitical Pressures

   1. xxxx

8. Climate Adaptation vs Mitigation

   1. Focused on Adaptation, not Mitigation; AC cannot work on those issues because Russia stops any initiative to mitigate emissions.

9. Lack of Integration with Global Governance

   1. xxxx

10. Observer Influence (or lack thereof)

Arctic Council Limit: Observer Influence (or lack thereof)

Observer states and orgs are allowed to participate, but their influence is limited to peripehral contributions, creating tensions between Arctic and non-arctic stakeholders. However, China is changing this paradigm.

Reasons why the Arctic is a promising candidate for geoengineering efforts

1. Aplified climate change impacts

2. High albedo sensitivity

3. Small population and limited infrastructure

4. Strategic impact on global climate feedback loops

Why it matters for geoengineering: Arctic Amplification

Arctic is warming at 4x the global average, arctic amplification. A new hotspot for climate impacts and critical for intervention

Why it matters for geoengineering: Albedo Sensitivity

Arctic’s reflective ice and snow cover (high albedo) are critical for cooling the planet; ice loss due to warming decreases albedo, accelerating global heating. Putting drapes or white material over darkening areas could make a difference.

Why it matters for geoengineering: Small population, limited infrastructure

The arctic has low population density and limited human infrastructure, reducing direct socioeconomic impacts of geoengineering. However, there are still 4mil people.

Why it matters for geoengineering: Strategic impact on global climate feedback loops

Why it matters for geoengineering: Limited Political or Territorial Conflict

Arctic geopolitics are complex, but much of the Arctic falls under the jurisdiction of established national governments or international agreements. This means unilateral action is possible.

Why it matters for geoengineering: Unique climatic conditions

Having stable and cold environments means that certain geoengineering methods, like SAI, can remain localized and persist longer.

Why it matters for geoengineering: High global stakes

Why it matters for geoengineering: Established RD monitoring

Why it matters for geoengineering: number 10

Types of Geoengineering

1. Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

2. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

3. Emerging Technologies

Geoengineering: SRM

Solar Radiation Management: Reflecting sunlight to cool the earth; we know this works because a volcanic eruption in the 1800s caused a “year without a summer.” If you want to keep the effect, you have to inject aerosols year after year. Critically, you don’t have to be a nation-state to do this.

SRM “Boomerang”

If you start SRM, then stop, heating could quickly snap back into place, possibly to the tune of several tenths of a degree in one year, causing massive natural disruption.

Geoengineering: CDR

Technologies and approachers for removing CO2; mechanical stripping of CO2 out of the air. Storage of CO2 is also tough; the denser you compress, the more energy it takes. the ONLY way to achieve permanence is to put it in a rock. Hard to scale, energy-intensive, and it could just be FUCKING TREES.

Why are Saudi Arabia and the Arctic good places for CDR?

Lots of solar energy for fueling CDR systems.

Emerging Technologies

• Marine cloud brightening (cloud seeding?)

• Enhanced Weathering (ocean alkalinity enhancement)

• Ocean fertilization (Mathis HATES this)

• Bioengineering

• Glacier pumps

Major issues with ocean fertilization

• No net positive effect from container ships that distribute the iron

• hypoxic zone issues from proliferation of organic materials

  • We can make the ocean bloom, but there’s no net benefit.

Geoengineering in the US policy landscape

Federal views, research funding, and regulatory gaps.

4 Key US agencies involved in geoengineering regulation:

DOE, EPA (rip), NASA, NOAA; these are being destroyed, and after Trump, we will need to rebuild these agencies to properly regulate geoengineering.

International Geoengineering opinions/frameworks

IPCC is critical on geoengineering as not a feasible solution in and of itself, and as a possible distraction.

Role of NGOs in Geoengineering

Influence of advocacy groups, think tanks, and industry stakeholders, like the Atlantic Council.

Geoengineering ethical, social, environmental concerns

Moral hazards, technocratic fix critiques, and lots of justice issues. potential environmental impacts.

Risks and challenges of Geoengineering deployment

Technical risks: lack of large-scale data and feasibility concerns

geopolitical risks: power dynamics, resource control, governence of geoengineering

Liability and legal challenges: legal ramifications andf rameworks for addressing harm

R&D is the only way to figure out Geoengineering regulations, but why is it a slippery slope?

If we put money into research, and then fail to sufficiently look into consequences, then we will lose the ability to argue against it. Bad idea to fund the private sector to do this, but government has to do research here. But we need to figure out the consequences of “using the fire extinguisher” before we use it.

Other issues requiring international arctic governance

Resource Extraction

• Oil/Gas development

• Mineral Mining

• Fisheries Management

Maritime Governance

Geopolitical tensions

infrastructure/econ development

scientific reserach and data sharing

permafrost and carbon management

tourism and cultural exchangess

disaster preparedness

Improvements to Arctic Council Governance

• Transition to treaty-based organization for greater authority (Arctic-8 Nations)

• Expanding mandates to include security issues in coordination with other bodies

• Strengthening the role and input of indigenous peoples and observers

• Establishing dedicated funding mechanisms for sustained operations and projects.