From David Armstrong McKay, University of Sussex, UK
You suggest that geoengineering is now essential to save the Arctic’s ice based on the results of a recent sea ice restoration trial, arguing that “to buy us time and to buttress this delicate habitat from a warming world, geoengineering is probably our only hope” (Leader, 28 September).
If this were an early-stage trial for a new treatment of a serious disease, I would be surprised if you would so quickly advocate for its use. Instead, I would expect a promising result to be highlighted along with the potential risks and uncertainties. Time is indeed short, but if the aim is to limit harm to Arctic ecosystems, then we shouldn’t rush into understudied climate fixes without better understanding the inevitable trade-offs involved.
