06-15-09 by dugan
What if man-made clouds could save the melting Arctic icepack? What if global warming also made it easier to drill for oil and natural gas in the most frozen parts of the Arctic? Who would win–Exxon or polar bears? It’s a real question. In the Wall Street Journal today, a future-is-now OpEd (free access for now) rationally describes the possibility of man-made particle or cloud cover over parts of the Earth to slow climate change. On the other hand, a federal survey finds that the melting polar ice cap will make it easier to get at substantial oil and gas reserves.
The Arctic oil survey, conducted by US Geological Survey scientists, says right up front that the melting icecap and sea ice in the Arctic will make the likely oil deposits it detected, trillions of dollars worth, easier to drill and ship (the report, despite being funded by tax dollars, is behind a subscription barrier at Science Magazine):
The report says:
Among the greatest uncertainties concerning future energy supply is the volume of oil and gas remaining to be found in high northern latitudes. The potential for resource development is of increasing concern to the Arctic nations, to petroleum companies, and to all concerned about the region’s fragile environments. These concerns have been heightened by the recent retreat of polar ice, which is changing ecosystems and improving the prospect of easier petroleum exploration and development. (emphasis added)
The study concludes that 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas could be trapped under the Arctic, much of it along the Continental shelf in less than 500 feet of water. And more of it is no longer covered by a thick blanket of sea ice. In a CNN.com news story about the Arctic oil report, it’s clear Exxon is interested:
Offshore oil exploration in the Arctic is still in its infancy, but ExxonMobil and other oil companies already have staked their claim and started drilling in the Mackenzie Delta, the Barents Sea, the Sverdrup Basin, and offshore Alaska.
"It makes sense to diversify sources of oil and gas, given that the U.S. is one of the biggest consumers of oil and gas," said Alan Jeffers, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil.
But what if that newly recoverable oil, much of it in the habitat of endangered polar bears, retreated back under ice cap? That feat might be technically possible, even though simply stopping new global warming emissions won’t do it, according to another federal study.
That study, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that effects of global warming could persist for 1,000 years even if emissions are greatly reduced. Such conclusions are behind some new thinking about how to reverse global warming, at least partially, in the shorter term. Futurist Jamiais Cascio, in today’s WSJ, describes two possible ways to do it: man-made volcanic ash, and man-made cloud cover–particularly over the Arctic.
Cascio says:
Two approaches hold the most promise: injecting tons of sulfates-essentially solid particles of sulfur dioxide-into the stratosphere, and pumping seawater into the lower atmosphere to create clouds. A recent report in the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Discussions identified these two approaches as having a high likelihood of being able to counter global temperature increases, and to do so in a reasonably short amount of time.
The sulfate-injection plan, which has received the most study, is explicitly modeled on the effects of massive volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines; in the months after the 1991 eruption, global temperatures dropped by half a degree Celsius. …
The other high-impact proposal, cloud brightening, increases the amount of reflected sunlight by making more clouds and thickening existing ones. One idea is to use ships to propel seawater thousands of feet in the air, where it would form or increase cloud cover.
The technique has both advantages and disadvantages compared with the sulfate-injection method. Lofting seawater into the air to seed cloud formation would have fewer environmental side effects than the sulfates, and may allow for targeted use to counter droughts. Because it would be relatively low altitude, it wouldn’t have the same scattering effect on sunlight as sulfate injection.
But increasing the extent and thickness of cloud cover could also have at least as powerful an effect on rainfall patterns as sulfate injection, increasing downpours in one area or contributing to unexpected droughts in others. Finally, the technologies required for cloud brightening are still experimental, though initial proposals look to be markedly more environmentally benign than those used for sulfate injection.
Both solutions could present a more dramatic problem if the geoengineering was to stop abruptly. According to some studies, global temperatures would spike once the geoengineering steps were ended, actually exceeding for a short time where they would have been without any geoengineering. Afterward, the temperature increase would continue as if nothing had been done to slow it. While this doesn’t mean we’d have to undertake geoengineering indefinitely, it underscores why geoengineering must be accompanied by carbon cuts.
So such radical thoughts are no substitute for drastically reducing global warming emissions, sooner not later. But manmade efforts could also be partial and targeted to the most critical areas–like the Arctic. Fortunately, the deployment of geoengineering need not be all or nothing. Though it would have the greatest impact if done globally, some models have shown that intervention just in the polar regions would be enough to hold off the most critical tipping-point events, including ice-cap collapse and a massive methane release.
Polar-only geoengineering strikes me as a plausible compromise position. It could be scaled up if the situation becomes more dire and could be easily shut down with minimal temperature spikes if there were unacceptable side effects.
So. There might be a way to partially save the polar ice cap, with less likelihood of bad side effects on the rest of the Earth. Yet the melting of that same ice cap could be a boon to ExxonMobil. And the nations with the most political influence on the Arctic–the U.S. and Russia–stand to benefit most from more drilling there. It’s a juxtaposition that’s too new to predict what the outcome may be. But it will certainly be a battle.