For millennia, the Arctic tundra has helped stabilize global temperatures by storing carbon in the frozen ground. Wildfires have changed that, according to the latest Arctic Report Card released yesterday at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference.
Science
Scientists advise EU to halt solar geoengineering
Scientific advisers to the European Commission are calling for a moratorium across the EU on efforts to artificially cool Earth through solar geoengineering. That includes controversial technologies used to reflect sunlight back into space, primarily by sending reflective particles into the atmosphere or by brightening clouds.
Proponents argue that this can help in the fight against climate change, especially as planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions continue to climb. But small-scale experiments have triggered backlash over concerns that these technologies could do more harm than good.
Experiments have triggered backlash over concerns that these technologies could do more harm than good
There’s “insufficient scientific evidence” to show that solar geoengineering can actually prevent climate change, says the opinion written by the GCSA.
“Given the currently very high levels of scientific and technical uncertainty … as well as the potential harmful uses, we advocate for a moratorium on all large-scale [solar geoengineering] experimentation and deployment,” writes the EGE in the second highly anticipated opinion.
Solar geoengineering merely attempts to tackle “the symptoms rather than the root causes of climate change,” according to the GCSA. Greenhouse gas emissions including carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are heating the planet. Trying to artificially cool Earth does nothing to stop that pollution from building up, nor does it treat other serious consequences like oceans becoming more acidic as they absorb excess CO2. It could also cause unintended problems, including changing rainfall patterns or impacting food production and solar energy generation, the GCSA notes.
The tactic that’s gained the most attention so far involves mimicking the way volcanic eruptions temporarily cool the planet by spewing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, producing a reflective haze. But using sulfur dioxide can also be considered a pollutant that might irritate people’s lungs, lead to acid rain, and potentially rip open the Antarctic ozone hole.
The experiments were likely too small to have any major impact on the climate. Nevertheless, the company tried to sell “cooling credits” at $10 per gram of sulfur dioxide to anyone interested in trying to offset their carbon emissions. The GCSA’s opinion says the European Commission ought to “oppose” the use of cooling credits from solar geoengineering.
Facing the prospect of more rogue experiments, lawmakers are under pressure to craft stronger international rules. The governing body of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity adopted restrictions on large-scale geoengineering in 2010, but it exempts small-scale experiments. Now, the European Commission’s scientific advisers recommend a more explicit EU-wide moratorium. It also recommends setting the stage for a new international treaty on solar geoengineering and says that the EU should advocate against deploying such technologies globally for the “foreseeable future.”
There have been some cautious efforts to fund legitimate research into solar geoengineering, though likely confined to labs and computer models for now. Harvard recently canceled plans to conduct an outdoor test flight in Sweden after facing opposition from Indigenous Saami leaders who said they weren’t consulted about the experiment. The European Commission should assess new research on solar geoengineering every five to 10 years, its scientific advisers say.
“These technologies do show some promise, but they are far from mature,” Ekaterina Zaharieva, commissioner for startups, research, and innovation, said in a statement today. “Research must continue, but the opinion of the European Group on Ethics shows research must be rigorous and ethical, and it must take full account of the possible range of direct and indirect effects.”
Science
NASA thinks it’s figured out why the Mars helicopter crashed
Ahead of a full technical report that’s expected to be released in the next few weeks, engineers from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and AeroVironment have revealed what’s believed to be the cause of the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter’s crash on January 18th, 2024. The craft’s vision navigation system, which was designed to track textured features on the surface of Mars, was confused by a featureless stretch of rippled sandy terrain, resulting in incorrect velocity estimates that led to a hard landing.
Relying on remote data, including photographs taken after the flight, the investigators believe that “navigation errors created high horizontal velocities at touchdown,” which most likely resulted in Ingenuity experiencing a “hard impact on the sand ripple’s slope,” causing it to pitch and roll.
NASA’s engineers originally assumed that Ingenuity’s spinning rotor blades were damaged after making contact with the surface of Mars during the crash. They now believe they snapped off because “the rapid attitude change resulted in loads on the fast-rotating rotor blades beyond their design limits.” A part of one of the rotor blades was located about 49 feet away from the craft’s final resting place.
Communications were lost during the crash as a result of excessive vibration in the damaged and unbalanced rotor system that resulted in an excessive power demand. However, despite being permanently grounded, communications were reestablished the next day, and Ingenuity “still beams weather and avionics test data to the Perseverance rover about once a week,” which NASA says “is already proving useful to engineers working on future designs of aircraft and other vehicles for the Red Planet.”
Initially designed to perform only up to five experimental flights over the course of a month on Mars, Ingenuity operated for almost three years and accumulated over two hours of flight time across 72 flights.
Science
Biden administration raises tariffs on solar materials from China
Tariffs on solar wafers, polysilicon, and certain tungsten products from China are going to rise dramatically come January 1st, 2025, the Biden administration announced Wednesday. That means higher price tags on key materials needed to make solar panels at a time when solar is the fastest growing source of electricity in the US.
Polysilicon is used to make solar wafers, which are the semiconductors in solar panels. Tungsten — the same material in old-school incandescent lightbulbs — has many uses in electronics because of its high melting point. The metal is also part of supply chains for the aerospace, automotive, defense, medical, and oil and gas industries.
That means higher price tags on key materials needed to make solar panels at a time when solar is the fastest growing source of electricity in the US
It’s the latest instance of the Biden administration hiking up tariffs on goods from China — which dominates solar manufacturing — as part of its plan to build up domestic supply chains for clean energy.
“The tariff increases announced today will further blunt the harmful policies and practices by the People’s Republic of China,” ambassador Katherine Tai said in a statement. “These actions will complement the domestic investments made under the Biden-Harris Administration to promote a clean energy economy, while increasing the resilience of critical supply chains.”
American manufacturers welcomed the changes. “These trade measures will begin to counter the pervasive Chinese government subsidies in solar manufacturing. It is a step in the right direction,” Mike Carr, executive director of the Solar Energy Manufacturers for America (SEMA) Coalition, said in an emailed statement.
President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to hike tariffs on imported goods from China even more than his predecessor, which is expected to increase prices on everything from cars to electronics.
Science
The tundra keeps burning and it’s transforming the Arctic
Fires, intensified by climate change, release carbon trapped in soil and plants. More frequent infernos have now transformed the tundra into a net source of carbon dioxide emissions. It’s a dramatic shift for the Arctic, and one that will make the planet even hotter.
“Climate change is not bringing about a new normal. Instead, climate change is bringing ongoing and rapid change,” Twila Moon, lead editor of the Arctic Report Card and deputy lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, said at the conference yesterday.
“Climate change is not bringing about a new normal.”
The Arctic’s permafrost, which stays frozen year-round, has kept planet-heating carbon sequestered for thousands of years. Northern permafrost has been estimated to hold about twice as much carbon as there is in the atmosphere. Tundra describes the Arctic’s tree-less plains, where shrubs, grasses, and mosses grow and take in carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. Plants eventually release that CO2 back into the atmosphere when they decompose or if they burn. And lucky for us, frigid temperatures slow microbial decomposition in the Arctic, keeping that carbon locked in the soil.
But greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels have made our planet a hotter place, and the Arctic has been warming nearly four times as fast as the rest of the planet. As a result, permafrost is thawing — waking up the microbes that break down dead plants and releasing previously trapped greenhouse gases. Permafrost temperatures hit record highs across nearly half of the monitoring stations in Alaska in 2024, according to the report card.
Wildfires are another growing problem since dead vegetation makes for a great fuel source. Blazes quickly release carbon trapped in plants and soil. Wildfires across areas with permafrost in North America have increased since the middle of the 20th century. Fires are more intense, burn across larger areas, and create more carbon pollution.
2023 was the worst year on record in terms of how much of the Arctic burned. A historically bad wildfire season in Canada led to the release of more than 640 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, an amount larger than any country’s annual carbon pollution with the exception of China, the US, and India.
Taking wildfire emissions into account, the Arctic tundra is now releasing more CO2 than it captures. It’s a long-term trend that the researchers expect to continue after crunching data from roughly the past two decades for this report card. The Arctic permafrost region as a whole — which encompasses tundra and forests — has become carbon neutral over the past 20 years, meaning it’s neither absorbing nor releasing excess CO2.
The amount of carbon dioxide now leaking from the tundra is small in comparison to the billions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions human activity sends into the atmosphere each year. But it adds to the many ways life in the Arctic is getting harder. Caribou populations have dropped by 65 percent over the last few decades as global warming transforms the landscape to which they’ve adapted, for example. They’ve been documented eating less on hot days, perhaps because they’re trying to stay cool or avoid mosquitoes. And caribou health has cascading impacts on the local people that rely on the herds for food.
Some species are finding ways to adjust. Ice seals in Alaska, for example, have started to eat different kinds of fish depending on what’s available and seem to be staying healthy. Understanding how the environment is changing, through research like the Arctic Report Card, might similarly help humans adapt. The report was produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) working with 97 scientists from 11 different countries.
If not for the vast stores of carbon in the Arctic permafrost, the consequences of climate change would already be much more intense today. And now, the Arctic needs help from other regions of the world that are producing vastly more planet-heating pollution.
“While we can hope that many plants and animals will find pathways to adaptation as ice seals have so far, hope is not a pathway for preparation or risk reduction,” Moon said. “With almost all human produced heat trapping emissions created outside of the Arctic, only the strongest actions to reduce these emissions will allow us to minimize risk and damage as much as possible into the future. This is true for the Arctic and the globe.”
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
Why Millennials, GenZs Are Riding The Investment Tech Wave In India
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
Startups That Caught Our Eyes In September 2023
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
How Raaho Is Using Tech To Transform India’s Fragmented Commercial Trucking
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
Meet The 10 Indian Startup Gems In The Indian Jewellery Industry’s Crown
-
Crptocurrency10 months ago
Lither is Making Crypto Safe, Fun, and Profitable for Everyone!
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
WOW Skin Science’s Blueprint For Breaking Through In The $783 Bn BPC Segment
-
Startup Stories1 year ago
How Volt Money Is Unlocking The Value Of Mutual Funds With Secured Lending
-
E-commerce1 year ago
Top Online Couponing Trends To Watch Out For In 2016