Should we refreeze the Arctic?
Is there a case for climate repair?
At the end of 2022, Prospect Magazine, in conjunction with Nesta (The UK’s innovation agency for social good) ran a thought experiment about the operation of a Minister for the Future. It was an idea derived from Kim Stanley Robinson’s fiction of a similar name that asked what a Minister for the Future would actually do. The magazine published a special report that advocated a number of actions for the Minister to undertake, one of which, proposed by Professor Sir David King, was the refreezing of the Arctic. As part of the follow up to the magazine article, a presentation was arranged to allow Sir David to expand upon his ideas, which can be seen on You Tube. This is an interesting idea that is worth further consideration. In giving the proposal a fair airing, we need to consider three dimensions. First, is it technically feasible to refreeze the Arctic? If it is technically feasible, is it a desirable thing to do? And if it is feasible and desirable, who will be responsible for doing it?
Much of the You Tube video is concerned with the the first question — is it technically feasible to refreeze the Arctic? This question sits around two core issues — which is the best technology to use, and can this be achieved at scale? There appear to be two contending technologies that would allow us to refreeze the Arctic. The first is the injection of water droplets into the atmosphere to mimic the natural process of cloud formation. The idea being that thick cloud cover during the summer months would cool the Arctic to such a point that the summer ice melt would be significantly impaired. The other contending technology has it that this effect could be achieved through the seeding of clouds using some form of sulphates. Sir David comes down firmly against the use of sulphates and advocates strongly the production of water droplets.
The state of play is that there is a degree of proof of concept for this technology, but that a working prototype is needed. In many respects, the presentation could be seen as a plea to raise £10 million to construct a vessel that will suck water out of the ocean, convert it into water droplets, that can then be injected into the atmosphere. The technology is at the point where it works on paper, but a working model is now needed. Of course, even if a working model is constructed and successfully trialled, there then comes the question of whether or not this an be undertaken at scale. Exactly how many ships will be needed to affect the temperature in the Arctic? Exactly how much will this cost? Exactly what are the risk factors involved in such an action? Sadly, Sir David has no answers to these questions, which is a matter to which we will return later.
Let us suppose that the technology is successfully trialled and that it can be replicated at scale. Let us also suppose that the number of ships needed and their operating costs are not prohibitive. We then have to consider what benefits might accrue from refreezing the Arctic? Sir David points to two core benefits in his presentation. The first is to set a cap on the extent to which sea levels might rise. There is no doubt that sea levels are rising, that they are leading to the inundation of the island states in the Pacific, and that they will lead to a degree of human displacement within our lifetimes. So far, the impact of rising sea levels upon human settlements have been upon sparsely settled areas. There is the potential, in the next round of inundation, for far greater numbers to be adversely affected by rising sea levels, leading to a much larger degree of population displacement. Refreezing the Arctic could help to limit this immiseration and displacement.
The second benefit from refreezing the Arctic would be through the stabilisation of the Jet Stream. The Jet Stream is a fast flowing and meandering air current that helps to regulate global temperatures at a planetary level. The recent warming of the Arctic has created such a differential between the cold polar air and the hot equatorial air that the Jet Stream is now far mor unstable in its passage. That in turn creates more frequent and more violent storms, it creates deeper and longer high pressure cells that bring very hot summers and very cold winters, and it has a secondary effect of giving rise to summer droughts that contribute to an increasing number of wildfires. If the Arctic were to be refrozen, then it is hoped that the temperature differential between the polar and equatorial regions would become more stabilised, which in turn would reduce the violent extremes in weather that are currently being experienced in the northern hemisphere. Less flooding, less wind damage, and fewer wildfires would be a considerable benefit to be reaped if events matched these expectations. However, it has to be asked who would be responsible for making this happen, which brings us on to the third dimension to this issue.
In the You Tube video, Sir David makes no reference to who would be responsible for making this vision happen. The first question from the audience asks directly about the geopolitics of the proposals. The question isn’t answered. It’s not even acknowledged. This is a serious flaw because it will be the geopolitics of the proposal that determines whether or not it is ever adopted. The geopolitics has two dimensions to it. The first concerns the appropriate institution — if any — that should have responsibility for the delivery of the policy. The second concerns the proponents and opponents of the policy.
The Arctic Council is mentioned in the You Tube video as a potential body charged with delivering the policy. At present, the Arctic Council is divided between the members who are also members of NATO on the one side, and Russia on the other. If the Arctic Council is to act as the responsible body for refreezing the Arctic, some thought needs to be given to how it can become a functional body again. It also needs to be strengthened as an institution. At present, it can only advise members on a course of action. It has no mechanism for compelling members to act in a certain way, or to refrain from acting in different way. It is hard to see how these problems could be overcome in a realistic time frame.
An alternative institution might be the United Nations. This has the advantage of being a wide ranging institution, of which all parties are members, but there is a credibility issue with involving the UN. Many states see the UN as a rather corrupt and self-perpetuating bureaucracy that lacks much in the way of international legitimacy. It has no revenue raising capabilities of note and is reliant upon member states to enact its policies. If one of the P5 nations objects to a course of action, then the UN suffers from grave impediments to the implementation of its policies. This touches upon the second of the geopolitical concerns — the winners and losers from a refrozen Arctic.
The unfrozen north does have certain benefits accruing to a number of nations. The East Asian economies stand to benefit from the opening of a transportation route across the Arctic Ocean as the ice melts. It will also open up a fishery that has the potential to make a significant contribution to global catches. This could well be important in an increasingly hungry world. An unfrozen Arctic will also allow for the commercial exploitation of the hydrocarbon and mineral reserves that are currently locked away in a frozen landscape. The main beneficiary of a melting Arctic is likely to be Russia in the first instance, with Canada not too far behind. The policy of refreezing the Arctic would require the active co-operation of these nations, especially if the cloud forming ships were located in their territorial waters.
The institutional question cannot be ducked for too long because the policy, if it is to be delivered at scale, will soon bump into the question of who is to carry the risk of the policy if it doesn’t work or if there are too many adverse unintended consequences, along with the question of who is going to pay for all of this. In a world of territoriality, there is also the issue of permission being granted by a state, potentially one adversely affected by the refreezing of the Arctic, for the policy to go ahead. There are no easy answers to this question, but this does seem like one of those questions where some insight may be derived from gaming it. Perhaps, in the not too distant future, we may play a ‘White Arctic’ game to explore these issues?
© Stephen Aguilar-Millan 2024
