• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps).
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps)
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps)
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes (Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps)
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps)
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice or snow surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

• In this approach reflective materials known as geotextiles are used to cover ice surfaces to decrease melt. Materials for geotextiles include synthetic materials such as polyester and polypropylene fiber as well as natural materials such as cellulose acetate and natural plant fiber. This technique has been used on glaciers. Geotextiles are often deployed as sheets from rolls that vary in size (rolls 55 m x 4.85 m (0.055 km x 0.00485 km) reported in Senese et al. 2020, rolls of 50 m x 2 m (0.05 km x 0.002 km) reported in Xie et al. 2023). Other modes of deployment are being explored, such as via drones.

• Expected physical changes (global)
  • Global change unlikely
• Expected physical changes Arctic region)
  • Increase surface albedo, decrease solar absorption where deployed, decrease melt

• Ice surfaces in the Arctic
  • To date only applied to small area (e.g., 0.18 km² in Swiss Alps)
  • This technique would be very challenging to apply to sea ice due to changing sea ice conditions and logistical difficulties, although one study has modeled effects of application on Arctic sea ice (Li et al. 2022).

• Surfaces of glaciers and sea ice

• Ice or snow surfaces in the Arctic

• During sunlit time, in the Arctic during summer, with deployment occurring prior.
  • For application to glaciers and ski resorts in Europe, geotextiles were deployed at the end of winter to save ice by end of the summer and were removed in autumn for skiing (Huss et al. 2021).

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-³ yr^-¹ (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required.

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-³ yr^-¹ (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required.

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022)
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-³ yr^-¹ (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022)
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-3yr^-1 (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022)
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-3yr^-1 (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022)
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-3yr^-1 (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: $1.5 billion USD each year required

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

Impact on

• Albedo increase of 0.15-0.63 depending on whether the surface was ice or snow, how dirty the surface was, and how long geotextiles were deployed (Senese et al. 2020, Xie et al. 2023).
  • One study began with albedo of 0.08 for dirty ice and 0.56 for clean ice (Xie et al. 2023). The albedo of geotextiles at the beginning of the experiment was 0.71, decreasing to 0.39 over the course of a year (Xie et al. 2023).
  • In a different study, albedo of geotextiles was 0.64, snow-covered glacier surface had albedo of 0.43, and ice with no snow had albedo of 0.30 and lower (Senese et al. 2020).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 4°C from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022).
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in temperature in the Arctic of around 4°C with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Global
  • Unknown, but unlikely to have an effect
• Arctic region
  • Decrease in 36.6 W/m² from application in Arctic (Li et al. 2022)
    • Modeling study applied cellulose acetate film to sea ice in Arctic region and estimated a decrease in net energy flux of 36.6 W/m² with the film compared to a scenario without the film (Li et al. 2022).

• Direct or indirect impact on sea ice?
  • Potential direct impact if deployed on sea ice. For deployment on nearby glaciers, reduced melt and increased albedo may decrease temperatures and have an indirect effect on sea ice, although this is unknown.
• New or old ice?
  • Direct application would be on existing sea ice. Indirect impacts may influence both new and old sea ice.
• Impact on sea ice
  • For application to sea ice, increased sea ice concentration of 5-40%, increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m (Li et al. 2022). For application to glaciers, reduction in glacial melt of 15-70% (Huss et al. 2021, Engel et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).
    • There has been one study modeling the potential for geotextiles to be applied to sea ice (Beaufort Gyre), using cellulose acetate film. They reported increased sea ice concentrations of 5-40% and increased sea ice thickness 0.5-2.5 m compared to without the cellulose acetate (Li et al. 2022).
    • A meta-analysis of application to glaciers in Switzerland reported that geotextiles can reduce melting of snow and ice by 50-70% compared with unprotected surfaces (Huss et al. 2021). Ice height increased to approximately 2 m/yr (Huss et al. 2021). To date, geotextiles mitigated 350,00 m³ of ice melt in Swiss Alps, 0.03% of the area of the Swiss Alps (Huss et al. 2021).
    • A study of Dagu Glacier in the Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau reported reductions in melt of 15% (Xie et al. 2023). This study was conducted at higher altitude (4800 m) than those conducted in the Alps (<3000 m).
    • A study in Antarctica on Triangular Glacier found geotextiles reduced melt by 40-69% (Engel et al. 2022).

Scalability

• Unlikely to be scalable
  • This technique is logistically challenging to implement and is expensive (Huss et al. 2021).

• Unknown
  • First year efficiency around 60% (Huss et al. 2021) but other newer geotextiles might perform better and not require reapplication.
    • Efficiency of geotextiles decreases due to aging of geotextiles, weathering, and accumulation of dirt and black carbon.
  • This technique works poorly on moving surfaces, such as certain types of glaciers and likely on sea ice. As the ice surface moves the cover can be destroyed.

• Unknown, unlikely to be scalable

• Unknown, unlikely to have global impact

• Unknown, likely > 20 yr

Cost

• Unknown
  • Estimated costs for glaciers are $0.69-9.1 USD m^-3yr^-1 (Fischer et al. 2016, Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021). Total cost likely several billions of dollars each year. Costs are estimated based on studies of glaciers. Application to sea ice may be more challenging to implement and therefore more expensive.
    • The range in cost for glacial application is dictated by how much maintenance is required, and whether the installation is permanent or replaced seasonally (Huss et al. 2021)
• Scaling up to cover Swiss glaciers costs are very high: 1.4 billion CHF each year required

• Unknown
  • CO₂ footprint would be determined by manufacturing processes, shipping of geotextiles, deployment strategies, and need for reapplication.

• 7 – Technology has been implemented on glaciers and at ski resorts, modeling studies have been done to look at implementation on sea ice, tests have been done on different materials.
• Summary of existing literature and studies:
  • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
  • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
  • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022).
  • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).

• Technically feasible for glaciers; unknown feasibility for sea ice.

• 7 – Technology has been implemented on glaciers and at ski resorts, modeling studies have been done to look at implementation on sea ice, tests have been done on different materials.
• Summary of existing literature and studies:
  • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
  • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
  • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022).
  • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).

• Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• • 7 – Technology has been implemented on glaciers and at ski resorts, modeling studies have been done to look at implementation on sea ice, tests have been done on different materials.
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
    • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
    • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022).
    • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).

• • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• • 7 – This technology has been implemented on glaciers and at ski resorts, and modeling studies have been done to look at implementation on sea ice.
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
    • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
    • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022).
    • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).

• • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• • 7
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
    • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
    • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022).
    • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023).

• • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• • 7
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
    • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
    • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022)
    • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023)

• • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• TRL
  • TRL -- 7
    • Summary of existing literature and studies:
      • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
      • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
      • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022)
      • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023)
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

• TRL -- 7
  • Summary of existing literature and studies:
    • Application and experiments conducted on glaciers in Europe (Senese et al. 2020, Huss et al. 2021), China (Xie et al. 2023), and Antarctica (Engel et al. 2022) in addition to theoretical modeling studies (Huss et al. 2021).
    • European ski results have used this technology for about 20 years.
    • Geotextiles have not been applied to sea ice or to the Arctic. There is one study that models application of a cellulose acetate film to sea ice (Li et al. 2022)
    • There are studies testing different geotextile materials (Li et al. 2022, Xie et al. 2023)
• Technical feasibility within 10 yrs
  • Technically feasible for glaciers, unknown feasibility for sea ice

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Geotextiles will impact dynamics between ice and meltwater with unknown consequences; for example with glaciers, meltwater is unable to be stored and released when needed (Huss et al. 2021).
  • The weathering of geotextiles releases chemical substances (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Sea ice has a range of albedos depending on sea ice type, presence of snow and age. If the geotextile’s albedo is smaller than that of the sea ice surface it could lead to a warming effect (Webster and Warren 2022).
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would likely have an impact of biogeochemical processes and fluxes to the ocean and atmosphere with unknown consequences.
  • Snowfall on top of the geotextile could negate the efficacy of the deployed geotextiles.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could be toxic to organisms as chemical substances are released through weathering.
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile will likely impact sea ice-dependent organisms, from microbes to ice algae up to seals and polar bears.

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be toxic to ecosystems.
  • Impacts on sea ice-dependent organisms from covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would influence the sea ice ecosystem (and potentially influence the marine carbon pump in affected areas).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • The prevention of glacial melt has provided local benefits in the Swiss Alps related to tourism. Prevention of melting glaciers and sea ice may also benefit Arctic tourism.
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and contaminate water supplies.
  • Wrapping ice surfaces in geotextiles makes them inaccessible to people, resulting in lost connection, which may be particularly impactful for Indigenous peoples and local communities, and lost appeal, which may impact tourism.

Ease of reversibility

• Medium
  • Removal of geotextiles can be challenging depending on logistical constraints of the area (Xie et al. 2023). Geotextiles may also deteriorate over time.

Risk of termination shock

• Medium
  • After removal of geotextiles, ice surfaces will increase melting rates back to levels without geotextiles.

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Geotextiles will impact dynamics between ice and meltwater with unknown consequences; for example with glaciers, meltwater is unable to be stored and released when needed (Huss et al. 2021).
  • The weathering of geotextiles releases chemical substances (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Sea ice has a range of albedos depending on sea ice type, presence of snow and age. If the geotextile’s albedo is smaller than that of the sea ice surface it could lead to a warming effect (Webster and Warren 2022).
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would likely have an impact of biogeochemical processes and fluxes to the ocean and atmosphere with unknown consequences.
  • Snowfall on top of the geotextile could negate the efficacy of the deployed geotextiles.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could be toxic to organisms as chemical substances are released through weathering.
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile will likely impact sea ice-dependent organisms, from microbes to ice algae up to seals and polar bears.

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be toxic to ecosystems.
  • Impacts on sea ice-dependent organisms from covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would influence the sea ice ecosystem (and potentially influence the marine carbon pump in affected areas).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • The prevention of glacial melt has provided local benefits in the Swiss Alps related to tourism. Prevention of melting glaciers and sea ice may also benefit Arctic tourism.
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be contaminate water supplies.
  • Wrapping ice surfaces in geotextiles makes them inaccessible to people, resulting in lost connection, which may be particularly impactful for Indigenous peoples and local communities, and lost appeal, which may impact tourism.

Ease of reversibility

• Medium
  • Removal of geotextiles can be challenging depending on logistical constraints of the area (Xie et al. 2023). Geotextiles may also deteriorate over time.

Risk of termination shock

• Medium
  • After removal of geotextiles, ice surfaces will increase melting rates back to levels without geotextiles.

Physical and chemical changes

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Geotextiles will impact dynamics between ice and meltwater with unknown consequences; for example with glaciers, meltwater is unable to be stored and released when needed (Huss et al. 2021).
  • The weathering of geotextiles releases chemical substances (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Sea ice has a range of albedos depending on sea ice type, presence of snow and age. If the geotextile’s albedo is smaller than that of the sea ice surface it could lead to a warming effect (Webster and Warren 2022).
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would likely have an impact of biogeochemical processes and fluxes to the ocean and atmosphere with unknown consequences.
  • Snowfall on top of the geotextile could negate the efficacy of the deployed geotextiles.

Impacts on species

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could be toxic to organisms as chemical substances are released through weathering.
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile will likely impact sea ice-dependent organisms, from microbes to ice algae up to seals and polar bears.

Impacts on ecosystems

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be toxic to ecosystems.
  • Impacts on sea ice-dependent organisms from covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would influence the sea ice ecosystem (and potentially influence the marine carbon pump in affected areas).

Impacts on society

• Co-benefits
  • The prevention of glacial melt has provided local benefits in the Swiss Alps related to tourism. Prevention of melting glaciers and sea ice may also benefit Arctic tourism.
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be contaminate water supplies.
  • Wrapping ice surfaces in geotextiles makes them inaccessible to people, resulting in lost connection, which may be particularly impactful for Indigenous peoples and local communities, and lost appeal, which may impact tourism.

Ease of reversibility

• Removal of geotextiles can be challenging depending on logistical constraints of the area (Xie et al. 2023). Geotextiles may also deteriorate over time.

Risk of termination shock

• After removal of geotextiles, ice surfaces will increase melting rates back to levels without geotextiles.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • Geotextiles will impact dynamics between ice and meltwater with unknown consequences; for example with glaciers, meltwater is unable to be stored and released when needed (Huss et al. 2021).
  • The weathering of geotextiles releases chemical substances (Huss et al. 2021).
  • Sea ice has a range of albedos depending on sea ice type, presence of snow and age. If the geotextile’s albedo is smaller than that of the sea ice surface it could lead to a warming effect (Webster and Warren 2022).
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would likely have an impact of biogeochemical processes and fluxes to the ocean and atmosphere with unknown consequences.
  • Snowfall on top of the geotextile could negate the efficacy of the deployed geotextiles.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used, they could be toxic to organisms as chemical substances are released through weathering.
  • Covering sea ice with a film or geotextile will likely impact sea ice-dependent organisms, from microbes to ice algae up to seals and polar bears.

• Co-benefits
  • Unknown
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be toxic to ecosystems.
  • Impacts on sea ice-dependent organisms from covering sea ice with a film or geotextile would influence the sea ice ecosystem (and potentially influence the marine carbon pump in affected areas).

• Co-benefits
  • The prevention of glacial melt has provided local benefits in the Swiss Alps related to tourism. Prevention of melting glaciers and sea ice may also benefit Arctic tourism.
• Risks
  • If chemical or plastic particles are used they could accumulate downstream as chemical substances are released through weathering and be contaminate water supplies.
  • Wrapping ice surfaces in geotextiles makes them inaccessible to people, resulting in lost connection, which may be particularly impactful for Indigenous peoples and local communities, and lost appeal, which may impact tourism.

• Removal of geotextiles can be challenging depending on logistical constraints of the area (Xie et al. 2023). Geotextiles may also deteriorate over time.

• After removal of geotextiles, ice surfaces will increase melting rates back to levels without geotextiles.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Here we define justice related to approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice through distributive justice, procedural justice, and restorative justice. Following COMEST (2023), we consider questions of ethics through a justice lens. Note that this is not an exhaustive list of justice dimensions and as the field advances, so will the related considerations and dimensions.
• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
  • Specific to Geotextiles:
    • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability – Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership, and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • Application of any approach in national waters (within territorial waters or a state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)) would be governed by those states. Small-scale field studies would likely be within national jurisdiction. However, even if applied with national jurisdiction there may be potential for transboundary effects due to dispersal of materials. Any application on the high seas would be within international jurisdiction. See “Existing governance” for other available information on relevant governance structures.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Application to glaciers would fall under national jurisdiction. Application to sea ice would fit under the general description above.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The Arctic Ocean is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes all Arctic coastal states except the United States. The United States, however, is bound to customary law “including customs codified or that have emerged from UNCLOS” (Argüello and Johansson 2022).
    • UNCLOS and marine scientific research (MSR):
      • MSR is governed by Part XIII of UNCLOS. In general, the right of states to conduct MSR is subject to the rights and duties of other states under UNCLOS (UNCLOS Article 238). There is a duty on parties to promote and facilitate MSR (UNCLOS Article 239).
        • MSR shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, it may not unjustifiably interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, and it must be conducted in compliance with all relevant regulations adopted in conformity with the Convention, including those for the protection and preservation of the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 240).
        • States are responsible and liable for damage caused by pollution of the marine environment arising out of MSR undertaken by them or on their behalf (UNCLOS Article 263(3)).
          • Any approaches that involve adding material or energy to the ocean that would cause or be likely to cause damage to the marine environment would constitute “pollution of the marine environment” within the meaning of Article 1(1)(4) of UNCLOS, and States would have a duty to minimize the pollution pursuant to Article 194.
    • National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • In a coastal state’s territorial sea (12 nautical miles from shore baseline), the coastal state has the exclusive right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR.
      • In a coastal state’s EEZ (200 nautical miles from shore baseline), coastal states also have the right to regulate, authorize, and conduct MSR, and MSR by other states requires the consent of the coastal state (UNCLOS Article 246(2)). States ordinarily give their consent, and they are required to adopt rules to ensure that consent is not delayed or denied unreasonably. UNCLOS further specifies grounds for refusing consent, including if the MSR involves introducing harmful substances into the marine environment (UNCLOS Article 246(5)(b)).
    • Areas outside National Jurisdiction and MSR under UNCLOS
      • On the high seas, UNCLOS provides for freedom of MSR (UNCLOS Article 87(1)(f)), but it must be done with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas (Articles 87(2)).
      • The high seas are reserved for peaceful purposes (Article 88) and no state may subject a portion of high seas to its sovereignty (Article 89).
  • For an Arctic-specific application, the 2017 Agreement on Enhancing Arctic Scientific Cooperation is relevant. This is a legally binding agreement signed in 2017 by all Arctic States negotiated in the Arctic Council. It promotes international cooperation and favorable conditions for conducting scientific research, facilitates access to research areas, infrastructure, and facilities, and promotes education and training of scientists in Arctic issues. The agreement also encourages participants to utilize traditional and local knowledge as appropriate as well as encourages communication between traditional and local knowledge holders and participants. This may provide a framework for consultation with stakeholders including Indigenous peoples in intervention research, planning, and testing (Chuffart et al. 2023).
  • These approaches may be subject to regulation by the London Protocol as a type of solar radiation modification (C2G 2021 Evidence Brief CAT Arctic). Article 6 prohibits the placement of matter into the sea for marine geoengineering activities and to date has been used to regulate ocean iron fertilization.  The London Protocol only applies to the currently 55 parties to the Protocol, which includes Arctic coastal states except the United States and Russia.
  • The Arctic Council has been called upon as a venue for providing oversight on approaches to slow the loss of Arctic sea ice, or to establish working groups to provide guidance (Bodansky and Hunt 2020, Bennett et al. 2022). However, the current geopolitical landscape and lack of participation from Russia makes consensus difficult.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Current applications of geotextiles to glaciers have been conducted according to national and local governance structures in Europe and Asia.

• Distributive justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If distributive justice is considered, the objective would be that benefits and costs of research or potential deployment of the approach be distributed fairly while protecting the basic rights of the most vulnerable.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Procedural justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • If procedural justice is considered, people affected by research would have an opportunity to participate and have a say in how the approach will be researched, deployed, and governed.
    • Bennett et al. (2022) suggests an inclusive governance approach that incorporates stakeholder concerns in the design and deployment of approaches and effectively communicates risk.  Within the development of such a framework there is an opportunity to prioritize Indigenous self-determination and procedural justice (Chuffart et al. 2023). Note, however, that stakeholders may also include non-local people.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.
• Restorative justice
  • Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
    • It is unknown if there have been restorative justice actions for any Surface Albedo Modification approaches. If restorative justice is considered, plans would be developed for those who could be harmed by the approach to be compensated, rehabilitated, or restored.
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • No additional information.

• Geotextiles have seen increased interest from the tourism industry (van Wijngaarden et al. 2023). Their perception among the general public and for Arctic application is unknown.

• Applicable to all approaches within Surface Albedo Modification:
  • The principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is the foundation for engagement with Indigenous Peoples.
  • Particular to any potential Arctic research or deployment, The Inuit Circumpolar Council (2022) has published Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, which include eight protocols:
    • ‘Nothing About Us Without Us’ – Always Engage with Inuit
    • Recognize Indigenous Knowledge in its Own Right
    • Practice Good Governance
    • Communication with Intent
    • Exercising Accountability - Building Trust
    • Building Meaningful Partnerships
    • Information, Data Sharing, Ownership and Permissions
    • Equitably Fund Inuit Representation and Knowledge
  • Any meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples needs to consider context. Whyte (2018) states, “Indigenous voices should be involved in scientific and policy discussions of different types of geoengineering. But, context matters. Geoengineering discourses cannot just be associated with geoengineering to the exclusion of topics and solutions that Indigenous peoples value.”
• Specific to Geotextiles:
  • Unknown for Arctic application