Stabilizing permafrost by covering it
Large areas of the Northern and Arctic regions consist of permafrost, almost permanently frozen soil. As global temperatures rise, these permafrost areas are thawing at an ever faster rate. This thawing leads to massive amounts of GHGs being released into the atmosphere, as carbon stored in the permafrost is converted into methane by bacteria. Because methane is a very potent GHG, the thawing of the permafrost is considered a major tipping point in the climatic system. Permafrost preservation is of the utmost importance because Arctic terrestrial regions alone hold up to 1500 Pg C (Schuur et al. 2015), and although there is large uncertainty about the total amount of emissions from permafrost (Miner et al. 2022), especially when it comes to nonlinear abrupt thawing (Turetsky et al. 2020), significant amounts of carbon release is to be expected as the Northern regions warm.
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.
Analysis overview
Technological Readiness Level (TRL)
Unknown 0
Scalability
Low 1
Scalability
Physically unable to scale; sub-linear/logarithmic efficiency of scalability
Timeliness for near-future effects
Low 1
Timeliness for near-future effects
Implemented too late to make a significant difference
Northern + Arctic potential
Low 1
Northern + Arctic potential
No noticeable extra positive effect beyond the global average; technology is unsuited to the Arctic
Global potential
Low 1
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
Environmental risks
Major, serious risks with a high disaster potential; multiple and cascading risks
Community impacts
Negative 1
Community impacts
Serious detrimental effects
Ease of reversibility
Hard 1
Ease of reversibility
Impossible or very difficult to reverse
Risk of termination shock
Low 3
Risk of termination shock
Low or insignificant termination shock or damage
Legality/governance
High 3
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
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