Assessing the interventions

1. Capture and map out the range of possible interventions that exist or have been proposed to reverse, stabilize, or delay climate change impacts in the northern and Arctic regions for the benefit of the world.
2. Create a standardized evaluation matrix against which possible interventions can be scored.
3. Evaluate possible interventions using the matrix in order to gain a preliminary understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each.

The aim of the initial phase was to identify and document the full range of interventions that have been proposed to reverse, stabilize, or delay climate change impacts in the northern and Arctic regions. This includes seriously studied and researched ideas, as well as back-of-the-envelope calculations and “fringe” ideas. For this reason, we have included ideas for which there is very little documentation. The literature review took place from January to March 2023 and included online searches of academic literature, grey literature, as well as opinion forums (e.g., active Google Groups).

A set of criteria was developed to establish a structured and comparable approach for documenting and evaluating potential interventions. A set of 12 criteria deemed to be important benchmarks for evaluating solutions was defined (see table below). To provide a basis for understanding the performance of each intervention, a simple 3-point scoring system was devised (i.e., low, medium, high; negative, neutral, beneficial), along with qualifying statements. 

Each intervention was researched, documented, and evaluated by a team member. Individuals were assigned interventions according to their background and prior knowledge related to each proposed intervention. A concise narrative evaluation of each intervention was included according to the 12 criteria. This was accompanied by a brief introductory description of the proposed solution and the challenge it claims to address.

To facilitate future statistical analysis, a numerical score was also assigned to each criteria. For parameters where “high” is the desirable quality, a score of 3 was given; “medium” was scored 2; and “low” was scored 1. Conversely, when “low” is the preferred quality, it was assigned a score of 3; 2 for “medium”, and 1 for “low”. If there was no available information, “unknown” was used.

• In the initial assessment, certain traditional land-based mitigation activities (such as afforestation and peatland restoration), as well as some more experimental carbon dioxide removal measures (for example, biochar), scored relatively high as potential interventions to address climate change.
• Some proposed solutions, such as hydrological cycle modification and carbon dioxide deposition in Antarctica, scored low against most criteria rendering them unsuitable for further consideration at this time.
• Generally, ocean-based measures tended to receive lower scores compared to land-based ones and exhibited higher degrees of uncertainty.
• There have been only a few suggestions on how to mitigate the melt or preserve the current extent of sea ice and ice sheets, and most of these measures come with significant uncertainties or limitations.

• Some atmospheric solar radiation management measures scored very high in the initial assessment, particularly in terms of their potential global impact, although they also come with significant risks.
• The scores of the industry measures varied widely, with those related to methane, in particular, showing many uncertainties.
• Significantly more research is required for most measures, particularly regarding their potential impacts on local communities.
• This preliminary, high-level analysis raises many questions that will be examined in a more comprehensive evaluation during Phase II of the Frozen Arctic project.
• Read the summary report, Frozen Arctic, here
• Read the peer-reviewed article, A survey of interventions of actively conserve the frozen North, here.

The first phase of this project was a “rapid assessment” conducted in a three-month period, limited to a desktop review of the available literature (including academic, grey, opinion forums, etc.). The cut-off date for papers and other information was March 2023; any information appearing after this date has not been included. Documentation of interventions and subsequent evaluations were based on the information available, which, for many solutions, was found to be incomplete. Extensive interviews with experts or stakeholders were not conducted. Each solution was scored by a member of the assessment team and then reviewed by the other team members. An extensive peer review will be undertaken in the next phase of this assessment.

The initial rapid assessment of proposed climate interventions in the polar and northern regions will serve as the foundation for the project's second phase, during which experts will conduct a more detailed evaluation of these interventions. An Advisory Committee team will be assembled to provide strategic leadership for the assessment and the overall direction of the work, ensuring that it remains open, high-quality, transparent, and non-partisan.

Expert groups from various relevant domains, including atmosphere, terrestrial and ocean ecosystems, economics, society, business, legal and governance, will carry out the assessments of the interventions. Independent assessments from Indigenous peoples and local communities will also be included.

This website will be regularly updated to track the progress of the expert groups and provide the latest information on each intervention as it becomes available. Additionally, it will feature a media section for sharing videos and news stories related to the interventions.