Ellen Phiddian
Cosmos science journalist
Geoengineering – always a controversial topic – has been in the lens on Antarctic research this year, as a bold proposal to try and slow melting has captured public interest.
While the technological and environmental risks of the large-scale environmental engineering suggestion has been hotly debated, researchers say that the geopolitical risks have – so far – been overlooked.
They’ve published their discussion of the project, known as the Antarctic curtain proposal, in International Affairs.
The Antarctic curtain idea, made prominent by Nature this January, revolves around the installation of a “curtain” on the ocean floor, near melting ice sheets.
This curtain, tens of kilometres long and raised 100m high by a buoyant float, would stop warm ocean water from reaching glaciers, slowing their melt. The idea is controversial among scientists, with some arguing it wouldn’t be very effective.
“What had been a technical discussion among some scientists quickly became a social debate involving the general public,” says co-author Akiho Shibata, a researcher in international law at Kobe University, Japan.
“We believe that it was important to publish a paper within one year of the original proposal, before the social debate takes on a life of its own.”
Antarctica, point out the researchers, has been a model for peaceful international collaboration – governed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which states that the continent should be used only for peaceful and scientific purposes.
A massive geoengineering project, like this curtain, could be a lightning rod for tensions if handled badly, they argue.
They write that in the current political climate, “it would be an extremely unlikely diplomatic achievement to secure the level of international cooperation … required for the proposed glacial geoengineering infrastructures”.
There are 3 areas that could bring consequences: authority (relating to power and decision-making), sovereignty (relating to territorial claims), and security (relating to the safeguarding of something that would be seen as critical infrastructure).
“This paper sheds light on the political and legal ‘shadows’ hidden behind the exciting surface of science and technology,” says Shibata.
“However, we believe that it is necessary for the members of society to make decisions on the development of these technologies based on a thorough understanding of such negative aspects.”
The researchers say that, despite being unlikely, building a curtain like this is not impossible from a geopolitical standpoint.
“If in such a deeper scientific and technical discussion the argument is that there are social benefits that outweigh the governance risks we have presented, then again, we international political scientists and international legal scholars need to be involved in this discussion,” says Shibata.
“Perhaps then the discussion will no longer be about protecting the key principles of the current Antarctic Treaty System while considering this technology but about modifying those key principles themselves.”
