Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a hearing on "Protecting the Arctic" (available for viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane, Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near-term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending climate catastrophe.
After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that "I don't think the alarmist story adds up in what I've seen" (15:20:33). Lenton was hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive demands put forward by AMEG.)
On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately, AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing geoengineering in the process.