Log in to submit feedback for this text Feedback pencil

Stabilizing permafrost by covering it

Permafrost patterns of tundra soil, Northeast Greenland National Park

Ice wedges grow as the ice-rich frozen ground contracts during the winter and forms open cracks below the surface.

Year: 2015


Photographer: Peter Prokosch

References

There have been several isolated suggestions to mitigate permafrost thaw or influence the thaw processes in the active layer by physically covering the surface with materials (see for example https://groups.google.com/g/geoengineering/c/u2b9Xb5B0C8/m/aXQia-nNDbcJ) in a similar way to how glaciers might be preserved (see Glacier Insulation, and Passive Radiative Cooling). Although different materials have been suggested, these have not been worked out further, and are likely to be a very costly, and impractical solution.

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

Unknown 0

Glacier insulation is an existing technology although it is not sure if this could be directly applicable to permafrost.

Scalability

Low 1

This measure would require massive areas to be effective.

Scalability

Physically unable to scale; sub-linear/logarithmic efficiency of scalability

Timeliness for near-future effects

Low 1

Even if shown to be effective, the required surface area, materials, and costs make it unlikely to be deployed timely.

Timeliness for near-future effects

Implemented too late to make a significant difference

Northern + Arctic potential

Low 1

This measure would require massive areas to be effective.

Northern + Arctic potential

No noticeable extra positive effect beyond the global average; technology is unsuited to the Arctic

Global potential

Low 1

This measure would require massive areas to be effective.

Global potential

Insignificant to be detected at a global scale

Cost - benefit

High 1

Abermann et al. (2022) already show that even for the most visited glaciers, a coverage scheme is most likely too expensive. It seems therefore unfeasible to expand this over large swaths of the north to protect permafrost.

Cost - benefit

Cost of investment comparable to cost of avoided damage

Environmental risks

High 1

The environmental consequences of large-scale operationalisation are likely enormous, as these materials would prevent sunlight from reaching the surface and thereby impact bioproductivity in the active layer. Moreover, these materials would degrade and release particles into the ecosystems.

Environmental risks

Major, serious risks with a high disaster potential; multiple and cascading risks

Community impacts

Negative 1

The implementation of such a measure on scale would likely massively impact local communities, and would especially disturb indigenous reindeer herding practices.

Community impacts

Serious detrimental effects

Ease of reversibility

Hard 1

The material could perhaps be physically removed, albeit likely at great costs.

Ease of reversibility

Impossible or very difficult to reverse

Risk of termination shock

Low 3

0

Risk of termination shock

Low or insignificant termination shock or damage

Legality/governance

High 3

It is likely that nation states could implement such measures on their own territory.

Legality/governance

Currently legal to deploy, with governance structures in place to facilitate it and/or financial incentives to develop it

Scientific/media attention

Low 1

This idea has only been hinted at but not seriously explored.

Scientific/media attention

Very low attention from individuals and/or abandoned ideas; low media attention; no commercial interest.

References

Abermann, J., Theurl, M., Frei, E., Hynek, B., Schöner, W., & Steininger, K. W. (2022). Too expensive to keep—bidding farewell to an iconic mountain glacier?. Regional Environmental Change, 22(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01912-4 

Related ideas